ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Markets (Competition)

Ann McKechin: What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

William Bain: What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

Jim McGovern: What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

Andrew Gwynne: What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

Edward Davey: From day one of the coalition we have worked to improve competition in energy markets. Deregulation stimulated growth in the number and size of small independent suppliers, competing with the big six we inherited, and we have taken action to encourage switching, including easier switching, faster switching and collective switching. Ofgem’s retail market reforms and market maker obligation are also improving competition in both wholesale and retail markets. However, because we believe more should be done, I asked Ofgem and the competition authorities to make an annual assessment and last week we backed its proposal for a market investigation reference.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the referral to the Competition Commission. In an article earlier this year the Secretary of State criticised Labour’s proposals to put up a ring fence between the generation and supply arms of the
	vertically integrated energy companies saying it would push up prices. Is he still ruling out the introduction of a ring fence?

Edward Davey: What we need to do in these matters is to go on the evidence and recommendations of the competition experts. I would not prejudge the market reference—let us see what it says—and I am glad the hon. Lady welcomes that, but one of the things the Opposition have failed to recognise is that there may be problems in the gas market, where there is not vertical integration. The Opposition have been completely silent on this matter, and I am not surprised as I am afraid their competition policies in this area have been appalling.

Chi Onwurah: Is the Secretary of State not embarrassed that despite his Government’s talk of market forces, competition, switching and incentives, it took the threat of intervention from a future Labour Prime Minister to bring about the prospect of some relief—[Laughter.] The Secretary of State laughs but it took that to bring about the prospect of some relief for hard-pressed energy consumers.

Edward Davey: I think the hon. Lady ought to talk to the leader of her party because when he was doing my job he said, after many years of increases in gas and electricity prices that were higher and faster than they have been under this Government:
	“As I have said before in the House, I am not in favour of referring these matters to the Competition Commission.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 444.]
	When the Leader of the Opposition had the chance to take this measure, he did not.

William Bain: May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the fact that the Institute for Public Policy Research has said that increasing competition in the energy market will produce efficiency savings which could mean £70 a year being knocked off the average bill? Why will he not back Labour’s plan to break the domination of the big six, require them to sell power into a pool, get new businesses into the market and cut bills for consumers and businesses?

Edward Davey: Some Labour Members are suffering from amnesia. It was the Labour party that created the big six. It was this coalition that deregulated to enable new independent suppliers to come into the market—11 new suppliers coming in since 2010, and there has been a big increase in the number of customers for the smaller suppliers, who are taking on the big six. It is this party and this coalition Government who have been the force behind competition, while Labour Members are the friends of the big six.

Jim McGovern: The leader of my party has made a commitment to freeze energy prices. The coalition Government refused to do that. Why?

Edward Davey: It is always interesting to hear about this because when the Leader of the Opposition talks about an energy price freeze, he is not absolutely clear that it will go ahead. When he was on the “Today” programme in September 2013, he was asked what would happen if wholesale prices were to rise, and he admitted that the price freeze might not go ahead, which is not something
	that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is prepared to admit. I have to say that we need to read the small print of this price freeze because it might not happen. It is a con.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State wants to have his cake and eat it. Does he not see that the Ofgem report and the referral to the competition authorities makes it clear that the market is just not working in the interests of consumers? It is going to take at least 18 months for them to report, and then he is going to have to implement the recommendations. Why does he not just do the decent thing and introduce a price freeze now?

Edward Davey: We have been reforming the energy markets since day one, but we were not happy enough with the results and we wanted to do more, because of the mess we had inherited. That is why we asked the competition authorities to look at this matter. They have proposed a market investigation reference, and we are completely behind that. Neither we nor Ofgem are going to stand still during that 18 months, however. We are going to be working on trying to improve the markets even before the market investigation reference reports. We are being really active on reducing switching times, for example. We also want to push the smart meter roll-out programme, which will help people, and the Ofgem retail market review will complete and implement its proposals, including taking customers off dead tariffs. We have acted, we are acting and we will continue to act on behalf of customers. The last Government failed to do so.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to examine the role of the regulator, Ofgem, in improving and increasing competition? How is it that above-inflation—sometimes double-digit—price increases have been allowed, when they are not allowed in other sectors, such as water?

Edward Davey: Price controls were taken off this sector in 2002, so Ofgem does not have the power to control prices. Hon. Members should remind themselves that it was the Labour party that took the price controls off. We want to ensure that the regulatory framework and the policies are correct. That is one of the reasons we are pushing the policies that we have adopted. It is also interesting to remind colleagues of the record of the Labour party and its leader. When he was doing my job in 2009, the right hon. Gentleman talked about reforming Ofgem, saying that
	“the regulator needs stronger powers to deal with abuse, and the Bill will specifically act to prevent the exploitation of market power by energy generators.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 412.]
	What went wrong with Labour’s plans when it was in government?

Neil Carmichael: If we are to improve the energy markets, we must also increase capacity, as this Government have rightly noted. Does the Secretary of State welcome the fact that my local enterprise partnership is launching a plan for a skills centre in Berkeley, so that we will have the skills to deliver the extra capacity that we need?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see a big investment in the skills and expertise of our young people, as well as in the existing work force. This is a great opportunity, given the massive investment taking place in our energy sector, and we are going to need all the young people that the skills centre in his constituency can deliver.

David Nuttall: Does the Secretary of State agree that increasing competition in the energy market, as in any other market, requires the Government to remove red tape and regulation and the barriers to entry so as to increase the number of new entrants to the market?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question; that is exactly what we did in 2010. Since then, we have seen a boom in the number and size of independent suppliers taking on the big six that Labour created. As Ofgem and the competition authorities’ assessment makes clear, however, we need to see more progress. That is why I am strongly behind the market investigation reference.

Christopher Pincher: There is already a cash gap between what the big six are planning to spend on infrastructure and the amount that needs to be spent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a price freeze would serve only to discourage competition, which would reduce investment and place a greater burden on the taxpayer and the consumer?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this point is not discussed enough. When we talk to the industry, and to investors in the UK and internationally, they tell us that one of the things they fear most from Labour’s price freeze is that it would prevent them from going ahead with the investments that they want to make. A price freeze would undermine investment; it would represent a lurch back to the ’70s. Let us look around Europe to see what has happened when price freezes have been implemented. Hungary implemented a price freeze—indeed, a price cut—recently, and investment there has plummeted. All that is needed is a grasp of standard economics, but the Labour party does not appear to have even that.

Tom Greatrex: As the Secretary of State is well aware, competition in our energy markets is partly governed by EU regulations, particularly those relating to state aid. In the light of the announcement by UK Coal yesterday, will he confirm what the trade unions learned in talks with the Commission this week—namely, that the attitude to Government support to prevent the immediate closure of the two deep pits at Kellingley and Thoresby is much more flexible than his officials’ interpretation seems to suggest? Given that the amount of support required would be less than one tenth of the £700 million that the miners’ pension scheme paid to the Government last month, does he agree that he and his officials should be taking urgent action to prevent immediate job losses?

Edward Davey: The energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has been working tirelessly on this matter with our officials. I hope the Opposition will recognise the huge efforts that
	officials in my Department, under his leadership, have been putting into it. We have been talking to all parties, including the Commission, to make sure that interpretations are based on the law, and we will do whatever we can to help.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

Dennis Skinner: Following on from that—

Mr Speaker: I always bear the hon. Gentleman in mind, but we will hear from Mr Hollobone first.

Philip Hollobone: For competition to work best, domestic consumers have to be able to switch their suppliers easily. Residents in Kettering want to pay the lowest prices for their electricity and gas, but many constituents, especially those who are elderly or not online, find the complexity of bills overwhelming and far too confusing. What can the Secretary of State do to take the hassle out of switching supplier?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One aim of the retail market review put forward by Ofgem was to reduce the complexity and confusion in the amount of tariffs, which many people thought was a barrier to competition and switching—the previous Government refused to do this. But I do not think we can rest there, and one reason I have been so supportive of things such as collective switching and engaging with the third sector—Age Concern, Citizens Advice and National Energy Action—to develop the big energy saving network is to ensure that we are reaching out to those people who find switching, even when the tariffs are more simplified, a difficult process and a hassle. We are doing everything we can to make sure that the benefits of switching and competition can be enjoyed by all.

Dennis Skinner: Yes, have your conversation with the man who is dealing with coal, because this is very important. The Secretary of State referred to lurching back to the ’70s, but this is about the fact that we are reaching the end of an era. There will be one pit left if this decision goes through and it is all about some money. An idea has been put forward from those on the Labour Front Bench regarding the pension fund, but another solution could also be used. Why is it that the oil companies are being encouraged to take tax breaks in order to exploit those narrow seams of oil which are uneconomic? We have more than 100 million tonnes of coal beneath our soil, so surely he could use the same sort of system, with the EU and anybody else, to stop the demise and the closure of the last three remaining pits.

Edward Davey: We are working tirelessly on this. We have to make sure that we get a solution that all parties can sign up to, that provides value for money and that will actually work. We are trying our best, but the hon. Gentleman should know that there are genuine economic and geological issues, and other difficulties, involved. My right hon. Friend the energy Minister is trying to resolve this, working with everybody involved.

Energy-intensive Industries

Margot James: What assessment he has made of the effect of energy policies on energy-intensive industries.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps he has taken to support energy-intensive industries.

Michael Fallon: We recognise the competitiveness concerns of electricity-intensive industries, which is why the recent Budget included new compensation for the costs of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs, and capped the carbon price support mechanism. We are also providing compensation for the costs of the European Union emissions trading scheme, and to date we have paid out £31 million to 53 companies.

Margot James: Following the £7 billion package of support for the energy-intensive industries, EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, said that it will
	“help to level the playing field these companies need to compete effectively with others around the globe, and keep production here in the UK.”
	What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for reshoring in the chemicals sector, now that conditions are so much more attractive to investors?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. By 2018-19, British business will have saved some £4 billion from the measures we have put in place. We have cut green taxes for households and now we are cutting green taxes for business. That should be a further incentive for the chemical industry not only to grow in this country, but to bring further investment back to the UK.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee to energy-intensive industries that the compensation for the carbon floor tax that this Government introduced will be backdated to the date from which the Government have promised compensation, which is April 2013?

Michael Fallon: Carbon price floor compensation is something that we are still pursuing with the Commission in Brussels. I am hopeful that that will be agreed soon. The state aid clearance procedures are lengthy in these cases. Obviously, we are continuing to press the case for backdating.

Tom Blenkinsop: The carbon price floor tax introduced by this Government makes it four times harder for UK industry to compete with EU competitors. How many companies have received compensation for the carbon price floor tax? Is it more than one or fewer than one?

Michael Fallon: We have introduced compensation for the EU emissions trading system, as I have said. We have already paid out compensation to more than 50 companies in the steel, paper and chemical industries. Some of the major industries concerned have welcomed the further proposals that the Chancellor announced in
	the Budget, including Tata Steel, which said that the measures that were announced in the Budget
	“will make an important difference to Tata Steel in the UK.”

Energy Bills (Park Homes)

Annette Brooke: What steps the Government are taking to help people who live in park homes to reduce their energy bills.

Gregory Barker: Unlike previous schemes, park homes are now eligible for the energy company obligation, and some park homes have already begun to benefit from support. Additionally, we have made it possible, since February this year, to create an energy performance certificate—an EPC—for a park home, and this lifts a key barrier to accessing green deal finance for park homes.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply, and it is heartening to hear that some progress has been made after the very many questions that I have asked on the subject. I know that he will agree that we are talking about some very vulnerable people who are terribly exposed to energy prices. There is an imperative to get better insulation. How widespread is the publicity about this help, and has he found a way around the joint metering for electricity and water and the subsequent recharging, which often seems to add even more to their energy pricing?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady raises a valid point. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to act sufficiently for park home residents. Although the measures that we have taken move the agenda on, we accept that there is more to do, and we want to do more to help park home residents. Providing better information and support is part of that strategy, and we are making more information available to residents. We are looking to see what further steps we can take to help to insulate the homes of park home residents.

Michael Weir: One problem with energy in many park homes is that the supply is in the name of the operator of the site, who then sells on the energy to the tenants. One quirk of that is that under the warm home discount the name of the tenant must be on the bill, and it is not in these cases, so although these tenants would otherwise qualify, they do not in fact get the warm home discount. Will the Minister look at that and see whether there is a way around that anomaly?

Gregory Barker: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. That has made it difficult for successive Governments to reach out and act effectively to help park home residents. We are determined to try to crack this, and we are looking carefully at exactly the point he makes.

Energy Bills

Gavin Shuker: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Cathy Jamieson: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Stephen Hepburn: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Edward Davey: There are three main actions we are taking to help households with energy bills, including direct financial help, improving competition and energy efficiency. With direct financial help, the coalition introduced the warm home discount, which will take £140 off the energy bills of over 2 million of the poorest households this year. We permanently trebled cold weather payments, and we continue to spend over £2 billion a year on winter fuel payments. Last December, we reviewed Government policy costs, to take an average of £50 a year off a household’s bill.

Gavin Shuker: Today, 3.4 million people pay their energy bills with their credit cards. Although some will do that to manage their finances efficiently, half report that they are doing it because of the rising costs of energy. Is it not about time we had a price freeze?

Edward Davey: A bit of a non-sequitur there! We have made it very clear that we are doing everything we can to help the people on the lowest incomes, and we shall shortly be publishing our fuel poverty strategy, the first in more than a decade. It is interesting to note that when we considered how fuel poverty was measured under the previous Government, we found it was very inaccurate. We have therefore improved it so we can get to the people who are really struggling. The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that the price freeze is a complete con. It will not help consumers, but it will undermine competition and prices will end up going up.

Cathy Jamieson: The over-75s are the most likely to live in the least energy-efficient homes and are most vulnerable to cold weather, yet they are the least likely to switch energy suppliers so they often pay more than they need to. Will the Secretary of State back Labour’s call for all over-75s to be put on to the lowest possible tariff?

Edward Davey: That is what is happening through the retail market review. Later this year, any dead tariffs will go and energy companies will be required to put all their customers on the lowest tariff according to their payment preferences.

Grahame Morris: The Secretary of State mentioned going back to the 1970s. I hope he has seen the Office for National Statistics figures published yesterday on hourly pay rates, which showed that on average they are down 7.6%, and twice as much in construction. Why can the 36,000 households in my constituency that would benefit from a price freeze not enjoy the £120 they would have if he implemented such a freeze?

Edward Davey: Because many of those constituents will benefit from the policies we are already implementing and many will be able to get much greater benefits in reduced bills by switching, using the increased competition this Government have made possible.

Stephen Hepburn: Since the Tories privatised the energy companies, things have got worse, with more than 6 million households now behind on their bills. When will the Government stop tweaking prices in the energy sector and take on the energy giants that are making billions at the expense of ordinary people in this country?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman really is suffering from amnesia. There was a 13-year period in which Labour could have done something about that and failed. In fact, Labour took price controls off. The leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party refused to refer the energy markets to the Competition Commission; this Government have done that.

Alan Beith: Some of the highest fuel bills and worst fuel poverty are faced by people in rural areas who are off the gas grid and by the small but even more vulnerable group of people who do not even have mains electricity. Is my right hon. Friend going to introduce some targeted measures to help these vulnerable groups?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many households that are off the gas grid and the small number that are off the electricity grid suffer high energy bills. Interestingly, the new analysis we have done for our fuel poverty strategy shows much more clearly than the measures used under the previous policy that that is a key group of people we need to help. That is what we will be doing very soon when we produce our draft fuel poverty strategy, in which he will see a number of measures.

Graham Stuart: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), when will off-grid rural residents get a fair share of energy company obligation spending? Will the Secretary of State ensure that rule changes do not create another loophole by focusing on off-grid customers in general rather than off-grid rural customers in particular?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If he reads the consultation on the changes that we want to make to the energy company obligation, he will see that part of that would involve a much bigger part of the ECO going to off-gas grid households.

Caroline Lucas: The private rented sector has the highest proportion of the most energy-inefficient homes, which leads to high energy bills and fuel poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a robust and enforceable minimum standard for all such homes, and will he explain the failure of the Government’s proposal to specify that that minimum standard should be at least an energy performance certificate band E for all homes?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She will know that this Government brought in a power in the Energy Act 2011 that would allow us to introduce legislation and regulations for the private
	rented sector. We plan to consult on that soon and take the sort of measures I think she will support.

Caroline Flint: The most sustainable way to cut bills is to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. On 16 January the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), told the House:
	“we have extended the ECO out to 2017 and increased the number of people that it will help.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 987.]
	Will the Secretary of State explain why the impact assessment published by his Department on 5 March says that 440,000 fewer households will get help with energy efficiency following the changes to the ECO?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is right. The reduced amount of solid wall insulation in the proposed changes to the ECO means that the money can go further and help more households.

Mr Speaker: Mike Freer—not here. Richard Graham—not here.

Ofgem

Graham Stringer: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Ofgem.

Michael Fallon: The Government formally reviewed Ofgem’s role in 2011. Since that review, we have strengthened its powers to investigate and penalise market manipulation, and Ofgem has taken firm action to improve competition, including reforms of the retail and wholesale markets. Last week it proposed referring the energy markets to the competition authorities—the first ever such reference.

Graham Stringer: Finally, one might say, Ofgem has referred the six big energy companies to the Competition and Markets Authority. If the Minister reads the small print in Ofgem’s statement, however, he will find that it does not cover power generation. Is that not another failure by Ofgem to deal with the problem properly? It is not possible to deal with the issue if power generation is left out. Is it not time that Ofgem had the plug pulled on it and we had a real regulator with teeth?

Michael Fallon: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not right about that. This reference is of the energy market; it includes power generation. Simply winding up Ofgem would mean that another regulator had to be set up in its place. Labour set up Ofgem, and now they want to abolish it, but they would have to set up another regulator. They seem to have a quango fetish.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Minister of State agree with the consumer report published by Which? at the end of last year which said that consumers had been put out by £4 billion a year since 2010? If he does agree with that report, does he think it is consistent with the regulator having done a good job, as he has just assured the House it has done?

Michael Fallon: This Government and the regulator have introduced simpler tariffs and clearer bills and made it easier to switch. The regulator has fined companies a total of £30 million since 2011. Last year it fined a single company, SSE, £10.5 million.

Catherine McKinnell: Last December the Secretary of State declared that Ofgem was fit for purpose. Is not last week’s reference to the CMA evidence that it is not fit for purpose and needs to be scrapped?

Michael Fallon: It is Ofgem that made the reference, so I do not follow the hon. Lady’s logic. We have strengthened the powers of the regulator, and for the first time ever, the regulator has referred the energy markets to the competition authorities. That is evidence of a strong regulator doing its job.

Energy Supply

Mel Stride: What steps the Government is taking to ensure security of energy supply.

Julian Sturdy: What steps the Government is taking to ensure security of energy supply.

Edward Davey: For the security of electricity supply, we are taking short, medium and long-term actions. In the short term, National Grid and Ofgem are implementing a reserve of power stations—stations that would otherwise be mothballed or closed—to be used if necessary, and we are actively supporting new proposals for interconnectors with Europe. In the medium term, we have finalised our plan for a capacity market, and plan to run the first auction for capacity later this year. In the long term, we have introduced our electricity market reform which is leading to the current boom in low-carbon energy investment.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend will know that under the previous Government, the number of energy suppliers halved, which did nothing to promote energy security. Will he set out the steps that this Government are taking to ensure that new entrants come into the marketplace to promote competition and energy security?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. The generating market, to which not enough attention is paid, is becoming more competitive. The amount of electricity traded on the day ahead market has increased from 5% to more than 50%, which has really improved competition, and Ofgem’s measures to create more liquidity in the forward market, which take effect next week, will enable the entry for which he asks.

Julian Sturdy: Given the public backlash throughout the country against onshore wind farms, will the Secretary of State update me on future investment for tidal and wave energy, which is a much less intrusive form of renewable energy that can provide a constant energy supply that would help to deal with security in the future?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend and I may disagree about onshore wind, as I have visited many popular sites from which local communities see real benefits, but I agree that tidal and wave power has a big future. The Government, and especially the Minister for climate change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), have been active by allocating £20 million for tidal arrays and ensuring that the EU provides funding for other projects. Generous support has also been given through the renewables obligation certificate and contract for difference systems.

Alan Whitehead: Given the almost complete lack of movement on investment for all the permissioned sites for gas-fired power stations, the Department’s estimates of spiralling costs for the capacity market mechanism, the state aid difficulties with proposals for that mechanism and the mothballing of existing power stations, will the Secretary of State review the case for a strategic reserve mechanism, which his Department suggested in 2011 would be a far less expensive and more secure method of supplying future capacity?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about such matters, but our plans for the capacity market are on schedule, so the fears that he voices are not there. He talks about the benefits of a strategic reserve, which we debated during the passage of the Bill that became the Energy Act 2013, but what National Grid and Ofgem are doing in the short term has similarities with a strategic reserve, yet avoids the disadvantage of creating perverse incentives for the wider energy market.

Ian Lavery: Does the Secretary of State agree that security of supply will not be enhanced by the closure of two of the last three deep mines, Kellingley and Thoresby, and open-cast mines? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have taken £4.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme, including £700 million this year, surely it is not beyond their imagination to use the miners’ own money to support what is left of the industry.

Edward Davey: We do not see a security of supply problem here, but the Government need to engage with all parties to determine what we can do, and we have been incredibly active in doing so.

David Mowat: Ogfem tells us in its most recent energy capacity report that supply will fall by about 5% between 2012 and 2016, leaving an estimated capacity margin of between 2% and 4% in 2016. Will the Secretary of State confirm that contingency planning is allowing for that and that a cold winter will not cause the industry to have to close shifts?

Edward Davey: I can confirm that. Obviously, we have been preparing for that for some time and working with the industry, National Grid and Ofgem. As I said, we have short-term plans with National Grid to have a reserve of power plants, as well as our longer-term reforms regarding the capacity market, so I can confirm that the lights will stay on.

Caroline Flint: Under this Government, just one new gas-fired power station is being commissioned and three power stations have been mothballed. Last week, National Grid warned that any delays to the planned capacity mechanism auction in
	December could lead to brown-outs throughout the UK. The Secretary of State indicated earlier that the plans are on track, but will he clearly confirm once and for all that there will be no delays to the auction later this year?

Edward Davey: We are on track. We are working both within the Department and across Government. We saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm in the Budget that all the remaining issues are being taken forward in secondary legislation. The right hon. Lady will know that there is a state aid case at the Commission. We do not control the Commission—no Government ever do—but our communications and partnership working with the Commission have been very fruitful.

Caroline Flint: My understanding is that the auction can be held before that, but let me ask another question. Even if capacity auctions are not delayed, they will not be operational until 2018-19, which is why we need the supplemental balancing reserve in time for the capacity crunch this winter and the next. The timetable for that has already slipped, meaning that some plant cannot be brought out of mothballing in time for this winter. Does the Secretary of State believe that the supplemental balancing reserve is still required, and if it is, when will it be operational?

Edward Davey: As the right hon. Lady will know, Ofgem has to consult on this. It is expected to complete and announce its plans in May. If, as I expect, Ofgem believes that we should continue for this winter with a supplemental balancing reserve, the working assumption is that the auction would follow fast behind that.

Energy Efficiency

Siobhain McDonagh: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Gregory Barker: Over 600,000 homes have so far received energy-efficiency improvements as a result of the coalition’s energy company obligation and green deal initiatives. Green deal assessments are stimulating interest. There had been more than 160,000 green deal assessments by the end of February, and yesterday we announced an additional £88 million from the Government to drive a street-by-street roll-out of the green deal under the communities scheme. We expect the green deal market to continue to expand during 2014.

Siobhain McDonagh: My constituent, Mr Davis, has late onset spina bifida. He needs a wide range of electrical equipment just to live his daily life, including an electric bed and wheelchair, and machines to keep his legs from swelling. Because Mr Davis has an occupational pension and is not in receipt of means-tested benefit, he cannot get any of EDF’s energy-efficient schemes or special tariffs. As a result, he pays £250 a month for electricity. After this week’s Work and Pensions Committee report criticising the Government for targeting disabled people, what can the Minister do to help Mr Davis?

Gregory Barker: I am very concerned about the point that the hon. Lady raises about her constituent. Obviously, there are some specifics involved—for example, how much his occupational pension is. Clearly, she is concerned and I would be happy to look at the matter in more detail if she would like to meet me.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister keeps making announcements about how well the green deal is going, but it does not seem to be going very fast. No one today has mentioned smart metering. Many of us thought the way to make our constituents more conscious of how much they are spending on energy and reducing it would be through smart metering. How is smart metering rolling out now?

Gregory Barker: We have one of the most ambitious smart metering programmes in Europe, which we will roll out over this decade. The hon. Gentleman is right—the increasing deployment of smart meters will certainly work well with the green deal. If he talks to some of the entrepreneurs and the new companies coming into the market, which are backing the green deal and getting behind it, he will get a very encouraging picture indeed. There is a huge amount of innovation happening that we should all be proud of.

Jonathan Reynolds: The sector with the most energy-inefficient homes is without doubt the private rented sector, with thousands of people living in cold, inadequate homes that are expensive to heat. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referenced the fact that the Energy Act placed a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a minimum standard for this sector from April 2018 at the latest. The Secretary of State was worryingly equivocal in his answer. Will the Minister therefore give a cast-iron promise today that this duty will be fulfilled, without loopholes and with the minimum standard at energy performance certificate rating E by 2018?

Gregory Barker: We would not have brought forward that measure in the Bill had we not intended to fulfil it. This is a coalition commitment, which we are proud of. We will make sure that it is implemented properly and we will consult appropriately. We are proud of that Bill and we are going to implement it.

Topical Questions

Graeme Morrice: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: Since the last Question Time we have continued to see strong investment and growth in Britain’s low-carbon electricity sector. Last year, for example, renewables accounted for a record 14.8% of all electricity generated in the UK, a 28% year-on-year increase. The news that Siemens and Associated British Ports are to invest £310 million in their wind turbine factories in Hull underlines the fact that the UK is the best place in the world to invest in offshore wind. On bills, we received the competition report from Ofgem
	and the competition authorities and strongly support the proposed market investigation reference. On climate change, we received the second of three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which confirmed that climate change impacts are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. It should now be clear to everyone that unless we take strong action on climate change, the dangers to human health, food security and the global economy will become intolerable.

Graeme Morrice: The Secretary of State recently spoke at a renewables conference in Edinburgh. He correctly highlighted that, with a third of the support for renewable energy going to Scotland, which has less than a tenth of the population, consumers in all parts of the UK contribute to, and benefit from, Scotland’s renewable energy potential. Does he agree that such pooling and sharing of energy potential and resources, rather than Scotland leaving the UK, is the best way of getting the most cost-effective low-carbon energy for my constituents and his?

Edward Davey: I am delighted to say that I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman is right that the single energy market across Great Britain is a source of benefit for all British citizens, ensuring that we have cheaper and more secure energy and enabling us to go green much more effectively. Rather than being independent, our energy systems are interdependent. We are better together.

Mel Stride: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any Government-imposed price freeze on energy companies would be counter-productive, not least because prices would be likely to rocket afterwards, and in the meantime the discouragement of investment in the sector would be deeply damaging?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I think it is even worse than he says, because a price freeze would reduce competition. Not only would the big six put up their energy bills after the price freeze ended, but there would be less competition in the years ahead.

Mike Gapes: Like many people across the country, I am suffering at the moment as a result of the poor air quality. Does the Secretary of State think that the poor air quality is due mainly to sand or to emissions from power stations in other parts of Europe? What is he doing with his European Union counterparts to ensure that we get energy security in Europe, because of the threat of Russia turning off energy supplies, and to ensure air quality in Britain by having cleaner power stations?

Edward Davey: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is suffering—as he can see, I am too. He makes a valid point, because air pollution is a serious issue. Although it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we take it very seriously. Most analysis shows that the air pollution that is most damaging in UK cities comes from the transport sector, but clearly we will do all we can. It is yet another good reason for going green.

Julian Sturdy: Communities to the east of my constituency are facing proposals for two 80-metre wind turbines. To add to their misery, proposals are in the pipeline for a further 40 wind farms across York in the council’s draft local plan. Given that we have already achieved the Government’s target capacity of 13 GW for onshore wind, including those in the planning process and those that have planning permission, will the Secretary of State agree to look again at the subsidy for onshore wind and attempt to rebalance it in favour of other renewables?

Edward Davey: I have to tell my hon. Friend that we are favouring other renewables. Offshore wind and other renewables get much higher strike prices. With regard to the spend from our low-carbon electricity budget, under the levy control framework they get more support because they are less mature technologies. As the technologies mature, we have been reducing support, whether for solar or onshore wind, in particular. Onshore wind is playing a vital role. It is the cheapest large-scale renewable technology, and I would not want to do anything to reduce its deployment.

Julie Elliott: That last answer was very interesting because
	“Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source that can be deployed at significant scale.”
	Those are not my words, nor the words of the onshore wind industry, but those of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Yet it was reported this week that the Prime Minister wants, in effect, a moratorium on onshore wind. What impact does the Secretary of State think such loose talk has on investment, and does he support the Prime Minister on this issue?

Edward Davey: The coalition’s policy is to continue to support the deployment of onshore wind. We already have 7.2 GW operational—a very big increase under this coalition—as well as 5.2 GW that have been consented and 6.5 GW in planning. We do not expect all that to come forward, but it does suggest that investors believe that Britain is a good place for onshore wind.

Mike Thornton: I heard with interest the Secretary of State’s answer which demonstrated how European support for renewable green energy makes a substantial contribution to energy security. Is he surprised that climate change sceptics often seem also to be Eurosceptics?

Edward Davey: There is certainly a link. I have not done a detailed analysis to see whether the correlation is 1:1, but I would not be surprised.

John Healey: The Secretary of State will know that almost alone among advanced economies, the UK economy is still smaller, and our industry is still producing less, than before the global financial crisis. Does he agree that strategic industries such as steelmaking are essential for growth that is more manufacturing-based and investment and export-led? While the Budget announcement of relief on the rising costs of the renewables obligation is very welcome, two years is too
	long to wait. Will he seriously consider the case that Tata and other energy-intensive users are making to bring this in sooner?

Michael Fallon: Tata Steel has made it clear that it welcomes the announcement in the Budget. It is important not to promise a scheme that could not necessarily be delivered by April 2015, because these schemes, like the others, take time to receive state aid clearance in Brussels.

Anne McIntosh: What are the procedures for a fracking permit to be issued for deep-well shale gas drilling, and what opportunities will those living locally have to express their concerns about the process in the planning application?

Michael Fallon: The process is that applicants must first have a licence and then receive planning permission from the local planning authority. They then need authorisation from the Health and Safety Executive for the method of fracking, permits from the Environment Agency concerning the protection of water and the environment, and, finally, a consent from the Department. The key to that process is that the major decision within it is local. It is a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether the application, on its merits, is appropriate for that particular site.

Andy Slaughter: Almost 5,000 households in my constituency are living in fuel poverty. Apart from increasing energy bills by an average of £60 this year and cutting insulation projects by 90%, what is the Secretary of State doing on this issue? Please do not refer to the green deal, which is a complete flop. My constituents want a price freeze. Why does he prefer energy company profits over people who cannot afford to heat their homes?

Gregory Barker: This Government are absolutely determined to do more for the fuel-poor. That is why we are bringing in the first refresh of the fuel poverty strategy in over a decade and doing more and more to help the vulnerable. We do not just want a cosmetic price freeze that would chill investment; we are taking practical measures to help people this winter by reducing their bills by £50 and paying the warm home discount, with up to £135 off bills for over 2 million of the most vulnerable.

Martin Vickers: Despite much positive news in recent weeks, Ministers will be aware of the concern in the Yorkshire and Humber region following the decision in the recent funding round not to support Eggborough in converting to biomass. Will the Minister update the House on the future of biomass generation?

Michael Fallon: Biomass generation is one of the technologies that is receiving support under our final investment decision renewables round. We had some 16 applications, which include biomass generation, and we hope to be able to confirm the first investment contracts under that regime this month.

Mike Kane: There are 4,627 households in my constituency living in fuel poverty, yet across the nation only 33 people signed up to the green deal last month, the lowest level in any month so far. Does the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable?

Gregory Barker: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is confusing green deal finance, an option for everyone who does the green deal, with the actual installation of green deal measures. As I said earlier, over 160,000 people have benefited from green deal assessments, over 80% of those people are installing measures and over 600,000 people have benefited from the combination of the energy company obligation and the green deal. I would say to him, wake up and read the real figures.

David Heath: One of the most valuable initiatives of the previous Labour Government was the publication in 2006 of Nicholas Stern’s review of the economics of climate change. In view of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to say this week, would it be worthwhile to revisit the conclusions of the Stern review and to update it, so that we see the true threats, but also the opportunities, of climate change in this country?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right that commissioning the Stern review was one of the better things that the previous Government did. It very much feeds into our policy. He will be interested to know that as we go ahead to the September summit of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, for Heads of State to discuss climate change, the Government have commissioned a new report, working with a number of other countries across the world. It will look at the benefits and opportunities in tackling climate change and is called, “The New Climate Economy”. It will be presented to Heads of State by the former President of Mexico, President Calderon. We believe it will be very influential in getting political momentum at the highest level behind action on climate change.

Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that a recent London assembly report revealed that 76% of disabled Londoners are having to cut back on their heating to be able to afford the bills. What realistic steps are the Government taking to protect vulnerable groups in fuel poverty?

Gregory Barker: Very practical steps—we are now paying the warm home discount, which will reach a record 2 million people this winter. That is in addition to the other measures of winter fuel payments for pensioners and cold weather payments when necessary. We will be publishing our fuel poverty strategy soon, which will look thoroughly at the whole landscape to make sure that we are doing as much as we can.

Nigel Adams: The survival of UK Coal and Kellingley colliery in my constituency depends on all parties bringing something to the table, including UK Coal, Harworth Estates, the Pension Protection Fund, the unions and the Government. Will the Minister update the House and my very worried constituents on what the Government are doing to ensure the survival of this important industry? Will he also update the House on the progress of the talks?

Michael Fallon: On 21 March, new proposals for a managed closure of the two collieries—not survival—were submitted to the Government on behalf of a number of interested parties and supported by the existing UK Coal management team. We have been considering those proposals with interested parties and with the Commission in Brussels. I am fully aware of the urgency of the situation and will continue to keep the House informed.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State rightly spoke of the importance of last week’s IPPC report on climate change. Will he tell the House of any new policy he is considering in the light of that report as a way of advancing progress from the UK on these matters?

Edward Davey: I think that the most important thing we are doing at the moment on this issue is trying to get EU-wide agreement on the energy and climate change package for 2030, including a very ambitious binding target on greenhouse gas reductions, which will be binding on the UK as well as other member states. We have been leading that, and last year I set up the green growth group to get all the ambitious states together. Following the March Council, I am very optimistic that we will get agreement on an ambitious package for Europe and the UK at least by October.

Duncan Hames: The latest quarterly figures reveal that the share of the UK’s electricity generated from renewable sources rose year on year from an eighth of our electricity supply to a sixth. Does
	my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go further in reducing carbon emissions from our energy supply and that, given that the largest share of that increase came from onshore wind, that should play a key part?

Mr Speaker: That is quite long enough.

Edward Davey: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen a massive increase in renewable electricity under this Government and the pipeline for more renewable electricity has never been as healthy as it is today.

Dennis Skinner: If we can get away from the green deal for a bit, we can talk about 1,300 jobs that are going to go in two of the last three pits in Britain—people who work in the blackness of a coal mine. I want to know the answer to a question that Ministers have been asked on three separate occasions: was there a proposal to use the money from the mineworkers’ pension fund—not the protection fund—in order to save these two pits? Was it raised with the EU? What is the answer? It is time the Government came clean.

Michael Fallon: Let me be very clear: these issues are being and have been discussed with the unions. I had discussions with the unions last week and we continue to discuss the proposals with the Commission. Any proposal for taxpayer support would have to show good value for money and it would have to be for a clearly defined period. We continue to discuss the proposals for a managed closure with all the parties involved.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 7 April—General debate on justice and home affairs.
	Tuesday 8 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 9 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 10 April—Statement on the publication of the 13th report from the Public Administration Select Committee entitled “Caught red-handed: Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics”, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The Select Committee statement and the subject for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 11 April—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:
	Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 April will be:
	Thursday 10 April—Debate on police response to domestic violence.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I know that this Government aspire to shrink the state to pre-war levels and take us back to Victorian times, but do we really have to endure the return of London smogs? The chief medical officer has recognised air pollution as one of the top 10 health risk factors in the country. We all know there is little we can do about sand from the Sahara, but will the Leader of the House tell us what steps the Government will take to tackle the UK’s contribution to this problem?
	As the much delayed and barely anticipated Queen’s Speech begins to loom closer, may I ask the Leader of the House about reports that the Government failed to consult the Queen about her most convenient date for the state opening and plumped for 3 June, despite a clash with the Buckingham palace garden party? One would think that with all the spare time this zombie Government have at their disposal, they would at least have been able to put it off for a day, but I have found the reason for their inflexibility—4 June is Eton founders day, so half the Cabinet would be unavailable. Given that the Government are so desperate for business that they have had to announce a general debate on Monday, will the Leader of the House confirm what we all know and admit that Prorogation will come sooner rather than later?
	Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister believes that he meets a better class of engaged and talkative shopper at Waitrose. As someone who holds an advice surgery in Asda, may I tell the Prime Minister that his snobbery is out of touch and misplaced?
	I do not know whether the Saharan dust cloud is responsible for clogging up the machinery of government, but this week has been remarkable for the sheer scale of the incompetence emerging after this Government’s four years in charge. On Monday, we learned that the Government have got only 3,780 people into their flagship universal credit scheme, which was sold as a way of transforming the lives of people on benefits. That is 0.3% of the 1 million people the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was aiming for by now. So far, £140 million of public money has been written off, each user of the scheme has cost taxpayers an incredible £160,000 and £34 million has been wasted on IT systems that do not work. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House and explain why his Department is in complete and utter chaos, and why he is letting down vulnerable people as a consequence?
	The Work and Pensions Committee published a report on Wednesday, which reveals that the bedroom tax is causing disabled people
	“severe financial hardship and distress”.
	The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), the Minister responsible for the tax, claimed that it was saving money, but she has now been forced to admit that it is not saving anything.
	The Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), then issued a cynically choreographed announcement that the Liberal Democrats no longer support the bedroom tax. That is odd because, as the bedroom tax has made its way through this House, he has behaved like a true Liberal Democrat: as Liberal Democrat president, he has voted for it; he has abstained on it; and he has voted against it. Will the Leader of the House organise a debate and a vote in this House in Government time so that we can see what on earth the Liberal Democrat president and his party are going to do next?
	The National Audit Office delivered a damning verdict this week on the Royal Mail fire sale, which has left the taxpayer short-changed by hundreds of millions of pounds and given a whole new meaning to the phrase “Cable theft”. It is so indefensible that one Conservative MP has described it has described it as a “debacle”, “unethical” and “immoral”. Despite the Prime Minister’s feeble efforts to defend the indefensible yesterday, if someone takes something worth £3.4 billion from us and sells it for £2 billion, it is fairly obvious that we are not getting a good deal.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether a gentleman’s agreement was reached with the so-called long-term investors, who actually cashed in their shares within weeks and made millions. Since the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has refused to answer, will the Leader of the House now tell us who the 16 priority investors selected by the Government are, whether any of them are Tory donors, and whether the Government will publish any correspondence? The country has a right to know.
	With all the incompetence this week, it seems appropriate that we had April fool’s day. Some of the fake articles almost fooled me. I almost believed that Piers Morgan was the new press adviser to the Liberal Democrats, and I was taken in by the idea that Alex Salmond would
	want his face on a new Scottish pound coin; but I could not believe that the Chancellor’s best man made £36 million from the Royal Mail fire sale until I found out that it is actually true. How is that for a mate’s rate?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement.
	The hon. Lady accuses us of shrinking the state. What we are doing is trying to live within our means, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. As it happens, we are taking Government spending back to about its level in 2004; it is nothing like as apocalyptic as she would have us believe. In truth, having inherited the largest deficit of the G8, it is necessary. It is part of what our long-term economic plan will achieve: it will reduce the deficit and, as a consequence, we will be able to have stronger economic growth to create more jobs and live within our means, including by capping the welfare budget.
	I note that, having voted for the welfare cap, all we hear—once again—from Labour Members is that they do not believe in it, that they would vote against it and that they are against the measures within it. Frankly, they also now appear to be against universal credit, which will have the most positive characteristics of being able to support those people whose needs are greatest and to provide additional resources, not least to those on low incomes with children. It is being delivered carefully. We are seeing where the issues lie and dealing with them.
	For the shadow Leader of the House to castigate the Department for Work and Pensions again this week is astonishing, when one considers that it is presiding over the most far-reaching and positive pension reforms that anybody here has seen in their lifetime, and that it has presided over an increase in employment of 1.3 million people and an increase in private sector employment of 1.7 million people since the election.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the reports on the spare room subsidy over the past week. Interestingly, much of the analysis showed flaws and inaccuracies in the BBC data. Frankly, if the Government had published the data behind the BBC’s announcement and had tried to make arguments on that basis, we would have been castigated. It would be best if it went back and did its numbers again.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Queen’s Speech and the date of Prorogation. As is customary for all Governments, the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced following full consultation with the palace. The date of Prorogation will be announced in due course and will be subject to the progress of business.
	On shops, the Prime Minister, like all of us, visits various retailers in his constituency. There was a Waitrose in my constituency, but it got shuffled out of it in the boundary changes before the last election. I tend to get accosted in all the shops I visit, wherever I go, in a very positive fashion.

Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend do the Tesco price match?

Andrew Lansley: I visit the Tesco in my constituency at Bar Hill. When I visited Tesco as a new Member of Parliament—happily this does not happen these days—I was accosted by a shopper on the grounds that she recognised me. However, she thought that she recognised me as the manager because I was the only person there in a suit, and that I would therefore know where she could find her washing powder. Hey ho, things have got better.
	On the issue of smog, we are hardly returning to Victorian times. Crikey, I remember being a boy in the east end and not being able to see the pavement as I walked to school because of the smog in the 1960s. It was, of course, a Conservative Government who introduced the Clean Air Acts to clear up that pollution. The UK meets the EU limits in this regard. However, as we have seen this week, a combination of events can still result in high levels of air pollution. We are investing heavily in measures to reduce emissions, in particular from transport. More than £2 billion of measures have been announced since 2011. Johnson Matthey, which is based next to my constituency and at which many of my constituents work, produces some of the leading catalytic converters. We should be proud of this country’s achievements in producing technology that enables us to reduce emissions. It is important that we achieve that.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Royal Mail sale. I am afraid that she was wrong again. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills responded on Tuesday to the shadow Secretary of State. She has not caught up with that reply to his questions. I will repeat what the Secretary of State said yesterday in response to the question about a gentleman’s agreement, for her benefit and for the benefit of the House:
	“More than 500 would-be investors in Royal Mail were approached in the lead-up to the sale. A number of long-term institutional investors who knew the company gave us the confidence to press ahead”
	with the initial public offering
	“and were some of the larger investors on day one. This is standard practice for any flotation. We did not seek to lock them in as they would have paid less for a stock they could not trade. And there were no meetings between”
	Ministers or officials and these investors. He said:
	“There was no agreement, gentleman’s or otherwise.”
	I note that the hon. Lady has not asked for a debate on some of the most positive things that have happened this week. The Opposition voted against the Finance Bill, but I thought that they might have had the good grace to acknowledge that one of the consequences of this Government’s policies is that the income tax-free personal allowance is going up to £10,000. That will take another 200,000 people out of paying tax altogether, and be worth £705 to some people. Fuel duty is now frozen again, and is 20p per litre lower than it would have been under the previous Labour Government’s escalator plans. This weekend sees the introduction of the employment allowance, which is £2,000 off the cost of national insurance for nearly 1.5 million employers across the country. That will further stimulate the business of this country to create the jobs that give people the greatest confidence and security for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The House will know that my almost unfailing practice is to seek to accommodate everybody and call every Member at Business questions, but I remind the House that there are two Government statements to follow, a Select Committee statement and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is therefore a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, and dependent on that we might, or might not, be able on this occasion to accommodate everybody. We will be led, I hope, with style and aplomb by Mrs Cheryl Gillan.

Cheryl Gillan: The Leader of the House carefully stopped his business announcement on 28 April with the Second Reading of the hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. I am sure that he and the usual channels would not want to short-change Members of this House or our constituents, so I am asking for a second day’s debate on 29 April. So many people’s lives, homes and livelihoods are affected, so much environment is damaged and there is such a high risk with this project, that the House deserves two days’ debate on Second Reading of this Bill.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I would never short-change the House, but I have announced the business up to and including 28 April, and that is as far as business can be announced at this stage.

Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the university of Bristol about the high level of mortality among people with learning disabilities. Is he aware of the disappointment of those who attended the NHS conference on Friday about the lack of substance and clarity over funding? May we have that issue clarified, and have the kind of debate that has already happened in another place?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to the right hon. Gentleman about that, but from my recollection of when I was at that Department, our approach was to protect resources available for learning disabilities through local authorities. That made a big difference at a time when local authorities were otherwise having to make considerable reductions in spending.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend is aware that Manston airport in my constituency is threatened with closure after fewer than four months of a promised two years under its present ownership. Manston is a planned search and rescue facility, and a major diversion field: only this week, a jet destined for Heathrow and running short of fuel had to be diverted to Manston. I am still hopeful that with good will it may be possible to secure a buyer prepared to keep the airport open, and if Manston does close I shall wish to raise the background to the matter in an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that the Government gives consideration to how the predatory disposal of national assets with security implications might be averted?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the House will completely understand and indeed endorse my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of regional airports—in this instance Manston—in his constituency and in other neighbouring constituencies across Kent, and Thanet in particular. As he knows, my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport are well aware of the issue, and in addition to what he said about the desirability of a debate in the House, I know that they will want to keep in touch with him and with the owners and operators out of Manston airport, recognising all the while that it is a commercial matter, but that the importance they attach to regional airports is undiminished.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My constituent, Miss Perry, of Gracehill in Ballymena, recently received her house insurance premium, which is double what it was last year, and she was told by the insurance company that that is a direct result of the floods that affected England. Although those floods were terrible and awful, and thank God they did not affect Northern Ireland to the same extent, is it appropriate that premiums should be increased by that amount in Northern Ireland, and may we have a debate on the matter?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that by its nature insurance is a pool of risk. The insurer to whom one goes, depending on the parameters of the insurance offer, will sometimes pool risk across very large populations and very big geographical areas. The Government do not interfere with the commercial operation of insurance markets, but the Water Bill, which has just completed its consideration in the House of Lords, will ensure that people can continue to have access to flood insurance. Flood Re, as a reinsurance mechanism to back that up, is very important, but it does not in itself reduce insurance overall. The £10 addition across all insurance premiums is necessary to meet the costs of Flood Re.

Robert Halfon: You very kindly granted me a recent debate in Westminster Hall, Mr Speaker, on the tragic death of my late constituent, Eystna Blunnie, and her unborn baby Rose, who were brutally beaten and killed by her ex-partner. This terrible crime left the whole of Harlow in shock. Since then, a domestic homicide review has been carried out and is due to be published soon. It will be anonymised, despite the parents’ wish for their daughter and her child to be named. May we have a statement, and will my right hon. Friend speak urgently to the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary on this issue?

Andrew Lansley: I am aware of the tragic murder of Eystna Blunnie just days before she was due to give birth to her baby girl Rose in 2012. On behalf of the House, and for myself, I would like to take the opportunity, through my hon. Friend, to offer our condolences to Eystna’s family on their loss.
	My hon. Friend will know that in April 2011 the Government placed domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, so that every local report into a domestic homicide is reviewed and quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. Each review results in a tailored action plan delivered by the area in question to ensure that we learn and act on the lessons of individual tragedies. I understand that a
	domestic homicide review of this case is under way and will be published by the community safety partnership in coming months. For reasons of data protection, such reviews are anonymised to protect the identity of all involved, including the victims and their families. I will, as my hon. Friend requests, raise the issues he has raised with my right hon. Friends at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

Diana Johnson: Last week, 45 members of staff at Hull’s office of the official receiver were told, after a three-week review, that the office was to close, and that all the jobs would be moved to Leeds in October. That will mean a loss to the economy in Hull of about £1 million, on top of the other cuts we have suffered recently. Hull has been trying very hard to regenerate the city. May we have a debate on why, when we are taking two steps forward, the coalition Government seem to be taking us one step back?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady often comes to the House to offer good news from Hull, the city of culture and renewable energy investment, so I am sorry that on this occasion she feels that there is bad news. I do not know the circumstances in detail. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to look at the issue she raises and to respond to her, but she will understand that, when we are realising efficiencies in resources, there will sometimes be necessary and inevitable changes in public services.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House, as a former Secretary of State for Health, will be aware of the problems facing minor injuries units. Minehead community hospital in my constituency is having problems in recruiting and in improving ambulance response times. Nearly 300 people, who are worried about the future of Minehead’s minor injuries unit, attended a public meeting this week. May we have a statement on all Somerset hospitals that are suffering from the same problem? There seems to be a funding issue at the very highest level.

Andrew Lansley: The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I completely understand. One of the objectives in devolving commissioning responsibilities to the local level, in my hon. Friend’s area and others across the country, is to allow a practical appreciation of the benefit of recruitment and retention of minor injuries units, because such units reduce demand on accident and emergency units and ambulance services. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to reply specifically on the issues in Somerset.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not know whether the Leader of the House has had an opportunity this week to read a report from StreetGames about the lack of physical activity among young people in particular. It precedes a report from the All-Party Commission on Physical Activity, which will be published next week and presented to the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House have a chance to talk to his
	colleagues in other Departments to establish how the Government can best respond to what is, I am afraid, a crisis?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. I confess that I have not read the whole report, but I did see the press reports, which I found very interesting. I know, because of my former responsibilities, that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and others have been working together to try to stimulate physical activity. I was specifically involved in the Department of Health’s support for the Change4Life sports clubs in secondary schools, which began under the last Government but has been extended to primary schools under this one. That should give young people the opportunity to become involved in games through their schools, but of course it is also vital for us to give them further opportunities by supporting local community clubs.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome the Government’s success so far in creating extra private sector jobs which have increased the number of people in employment to 30 million. I also salute the Chancellor’s commitment to full employment. May we have a debate about the need for increased productivity to tackle both our need to export more and the cost of living? Productivity is the key, as well as full employment.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. One of the most interesting aspects of recent years is that, notwithstanding assertions—not least by the Labour party—that the flexible labour markets that are so important to our economic prosperity would simply enable employers to lay people off, it is because we have flexible labour markets that employers have felt confident enough to take people on. What we need to do now is build productivity in those markets, and that depends on business investment. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s report forecasts strong prospects for business investment, and I believe that the doubling of the investment allowance that was announced in the Budget will enable it to be a strong element of our future economic prosperity.

Paul Blomfield: Yesterday, following a resolution passed by its city council, Sheffield became the first city in the United Kingdom to support calls for the international recognition of Somaliland. Since 1991, the people of Somaliland have made great progress in establishing a stable country with a freely elected Parliament and an independent judiciary. May we have a debate on how the British Government can do more to use their influence in the international community in order to secure recognition of Somaliland?

Andrew Lansley: I am, of course, aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He may have an opportunity to raise it with Ministers during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, and also with other Members who may be interested in Somaliland and Somalia, and, in particular, may welcome the progress that Somaliland has made in recent years.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on how councils spend taxpayers’ money? Having cut its care budget by £10 million, Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council has just squandered £1.2 million on a failed supermarket bid. Does the Leader of the House agree that there may be a case for an investigation by local district auditors of this squandering of taxpayers’ money?

Andrew Lansley: It is always important for auditors to ensure that councils get value for taxpayers’ money when they spend it. I entirely share my hon. Friend’s desire to see councils focus on how they can maintain the services that local people need most, and care services are often pre-eminent in that regard. Our better care fund, which begins in the current financial year, will provide £3.8 billion for care through local authorities, but, like the rest of us, those authorities must also find ways in which to save money. The Department for Communities and Local Government has published “50 ways to save”, which explains how responsible authorities can save money while also prioritising front-line services.

John Spellar: The Post Office card account is greatly valued by its users on benefits, particularly pensioners, and it is a vital support to the network of post offices across the country, but once again it seems to be under threat. Yesterday the Prime Minister seemed a little nonplussed when asked about this by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), although he promised to look carefully at what she had said. May we have a statement so that pensioners and Post Office workers, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses can be reassured about the long-term future of the Post Office card?

Andrew Lansley: I thought the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday was very straightforward and clear: there is not a threat to the Post Office card account, and it is simply a question of the negotiation of the future contract.

Matthew Offord: At one of the public meetings I regularly hold in my constituency, and indeed again at last night’s Mill Hill Preservation Society meeting, I was asked about step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway, a station on the Thameslink line that is a direct connection to London and is used by many of my elderly and disabled constituents. May we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain how the Government are ensuring that more and more train stations across the country are becoming step-free?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that many Members will rightly share my hon. Friend’s feeling that we should enable people who have difficulties with access and steps to have step-free access to stations. It is a major task, but happily the scale of Network Rail’s future investment programme is going to enable significant improvements to be made. If my hon. Friend has particular stations in his constituency in mind, I will get in touch with him and make sure my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport respond in relation to Network Rail’s plans.

Ian Lavery: The Treasury has creamed off in excess of £5 billion from the coal industry pension schemes. May we have a debate to discuss how the Government can best invest the miners’ own money and the continuation of the British coal industry—and perhaps the development and expansion of it as well?

Andrew Lansley: I know the hon. Gentleman was in his place during energy and climate change questions just now when these issues properly were raised. I cannot endorse the point he makes. It is important for people to be aware of the fact that the pension fund for any set of employees is designed to give them the maximum financial security in their old age. It is not intended necessarily to be an investment to be used simply in relation to their existing employment. Considerable risks are associated with that. None the less, these are matters for the trustees of any individual pension fund, but as he has raised these issues I will raise them once again with my hon. Friends at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who are in continuing discussions with the trade unions and the businesses concerned.

Stephen Metcalfe: As we heard yesterday, Visteon pensioners have announced that they and Ford have agreed in principle a multi-million pound deal to settle claims for pension losses suffered by former employees. Since my election, I, the Visteon pensioners and the all-party group on Visteon pensioners in their support—and with your co-operation, Mr Speaker, which I am grateful for—have been fighting for justice. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider holding a debate that will enable interested Members to celebrate this great result, thank Ford for finally doing the right thing and, of course, congratulate Visteon pensioners on their dogged determination and, hopefully, delivering the justice they so rightly deserve?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and it allows us further to reinforce the point my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about paying tribute to those who have campaigned and welcoming what has been offered now by Ford. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for leading the debate on 12 December last year on these issues. It is something of a novelty to be invited to have a debate not in order to ask for something, but to celebrate that something that has been asked for has been achieved. It leads us into new and happier territory for debates in this House. I cannot immediately promise that, but it is an engaging thought.

Nick Smith: May we have a debate on the Royal Mail sell-off? Notwithstanding the Leader of the House’s earlier remarks, the National Audit Office has disclosed that 12 priority investors sold their shares within weeks for a fast buck. If that is true, we need to know the names of the investors and the full details of the transactions, so that we can work out whether the taxpayer has been ripped off.

Andrew Lansley: I answered a question from the shadow Leader of the House on that subject earlier. So far as a debate is concerned, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills answered questions fully and
	effectively—rather more effectively than the shadow Secretary of State—when he made a statement on the matter earlier this week.

Philip Hollobone: The population of the United Kingdom is 62.3 million. If it is not to rise to 70 million, net migration will have to be cut to 40,000 a year. The coalition Government have successfully cut non-EU immigration from 217,000 a year to 140,000, but Migration Watch has predicted this week that 100,000 people will come to our shores annually from the European Union. That means that our population will be heading towards 70 million-plus, and that the Conservatives’ commitment to cut immigration to tens of thousands will not be met. May we have an urgent debate on the Floor of the House about how the Government are going to get their immigration policy back on track?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government have taken significant steps that have reduced net non-European economic area migration into this country. Additionally, we have taken steps through regulation to reduce the incentives for others across the European Union to come to this country unless they are coming here to work. We will be able to do more, however, not least because of our party’s commitment to the achievement of a further renegotiation in Europe, and there are others across Europe who share our belief that the free movement of labour should relate only to work and not to benefits. As a consequence of such renegotiations, we would be able further to reduce the incentives for people to migrate between countries without being part of a successful economy. On the question of a debate, I remind my hon. Friend that amendments to the Immigration Bill will arrive here in due course from the House of Lords. That might afford an opportunity for debate on these matters.

Catherine McKinnell: The transition to a low carbon economy provides a huge opportunity for the UK to be a major source of jobs and growth, of which areas such as the north-east very much want their fair share. According to figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, however, investment in clean energy in the UK is due to hit a five-year low this year. May we have a debate to find out why that is happening?

Andrew Lansley: I do not have the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that 14 major contracts for new energy investment are in prospect over the next 15 years. We are world leaders in offshore wind energy, and we now have some of the greatest prospects for investment in energy, not least as a consequence of the capacity market reforms in the Energy Act 2013, which will give investors the opportunity to come in and make their investments, confident about the nature of the market in the years to come.

Peter Bone: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has said. Did I just detect a hint that the Leader of the House was encouraging Back Benchers to amend the Immigration Bill to restrict immigration
	from the European Union? If so, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week to celebrate that fact?

Andrew Lansley: I think what I said was that, in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wished to have an opportunity to debate those matters—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) agrees with him on that—the Immigration Bill will take us further in the direction of ensuring that there are no incentives for people to come here without good reasons or without the prospect of work. I am not encouraging amendment to the Bill as such, because a number of useful amendments are being made in the House of Lords. When the Lords amendments come back to this House, however, we will have an opportunity for that debate.

Grahame Morris: Given that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has just confirmed to the House that two of the last three deep mines are to close, and that a seismic survey last week revealed 23 trillion tonnes of coal in 20 seams under the North sea, would it not be opportune to have a debate about the role of coal in a diverse energy supply?

Andrew Lansley: Of course I cannot promise an immediate debate on that. Securing our energy supply in a manner that enables us to meet our decarbonisation objectives is a proper and continuous source of debate, and I know there will be further debates on it. What I think the Minister of State was saying from the Dispatch Box was that he is thoroughly engaged with the company and the trade unions, and has been for some time, in considering the consequences of the prospective closures.

Philip Davies: Will the Leader of the House arrange for regular debates on whether we should stay in or leave the European Union? Will he insist that the Deputy Prime Minister participates in each of those debates? Now that Nigel Farage has, unsurprisingly, twice wiped the floor with the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue, is it not clear that the more people hear the debate and the arguments about whether we should be in or out, the more likely they are to conclude that we should be out? It is equally clear that those who want to stay in are relying on dodgy figures, desperate scaremongering and personal, cheap insults.

Andrew Lansley: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I believe we should have a debate in this country about our future relationship with the European Union, but that we should have it once we have had the opportunity that only a Conservative victory at the next general election would afford us: to have both a renegotiation of our relationship with our partners, with that mandate behind us, and the mandate for a referendum in the next Parliament. That gives force to such a debate. In the absence of a referendum, there is no force to this debate.

Andrew Gwynne: Ofsted reports today that too many nurseries in England are failing to ensure that children are in a position to learn when they get to primary school. Worse, Sir Michael
	Wilshaw says that children from the poorest backgrounds are especially badly served, with only a third reaching a good level of pre-school development. May we have a statement on this damning indictment of the Government’s early years record, which is failing?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman characterise these things in that misplaced way. What they are is an endorsement of our determination to improve early years education, not least to enable primary schools across this country to have more teacher-led and education-driven—standards-driven—early years education. In that sense, they are very supportive of what we set out to do. Across the House we should be very clear that, as I know from my former public health responsibilities, whether children are school ready when they first go to school is one of the central measures of long-term prospective outcomes for children. We need to focus on that, and I hope the Ofsted report will enable us to do so.

Christopher Pincher: May I associate myself with calls for a second day to debate the HS2 Bill on Second Reading? May I also ask the Leader of the House for a debate on university technical colleges, which are a tremendous way for young people to gain the industry-specific skills they need? Will he encourage Jaguar Land Rover and JCB to co-sponsor a midlands UTC, so that the midlands and Tamworth remain the home of the manufacturing sector?

Andrew Lansley: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that university technical college, and the support of JCB and others for it. I know that we are now talking about some 45 UTCs across the country. What is so compelling about them as a thought is that not only are they focused on giving young people the opportunity to have access to vocational qualifications in an abstract sense, but they are focused in given areas on knowledge of where those skills will be taken up by local employers. That gives tremendous confidence to young people going to UTCs.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that the matters being investigated by Ofsted in certain Birmingham schools are deeply worrying. Will he ensure that the Ofsted and Birmingham reports are published swiftly, and that thereafter there is a swift statement to this House?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is of course right, and Members across the House will share his concerns about the timeliness of the matter. I will, in consultation with my hon. Friends at the Department for Education, ensure that the House is informed as soon as possible, subject of course to the inquiry being carried out thoroughly.

Mark Harper: The Leader of the House will know that, a couple of days ago, the House agreed, without a Division, a programme motion for the Finance Bill. I had originally thought that that was a good idea, but having listened to him this morning, I think that perhaps another day’s debate would serve to remind the House that the Opposition voted against all of our excellent tax changes—our tax cut for working people and the freezing of fuel duty. An extra day’s debate to remind the British public of that might be a good use of this House’s time.

Andrew Lansley: Well, my hon. Friend tempts me. Two days, as the programme motion specifies, is the right answer for the time being. Of course if we were able to go beyond that, it would allow us to find out what it was specifically that the Labour party objected to that caused it to vote against the Finance Bill. Otherwise, we will have to tell the British public that it is against the increase in the personal tax allowance, against the reduction in corporation tax for businesses and, I am afraid, against the long-term economic plan that is delivering for the people of this country.

Nicholas Dakin: In the context of raising the participation age, may we have a debate on whether it is still appropriate for 16 to 18-year-old learners to be funded 22% less than pre-16 learners?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister for Schools has answered that question on a number of occasions. It relates of course to the necessity of managing within budgets for those who are of that age in that sector. As he raises it again, I will ask my hon. Friends to return to him with any additional information that they can give him.

Eric Ollerenshaw: May we have a debate on the 50th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the rural broadband programme? It is a totally successful programme, but there are issues with British Telecom, exemplified in my constituency by it leaving out villages such as Glasson Dock in pursuance of attempting to box in the only other operator in the area, Broadband for the Rural North, which is a social enterprise and a not-for-profit organisation.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend might find it useful to note that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 8 April entitled, “Broadband and the north of England” in which he may have an opportunity to expand on some of his important points. It is widely recognised among Members that while we are making tremendous progress on broadband coverage— 10,000 additional homes per week—we are all focused on trying to ensure that people do not get left behind.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House might know that I am a Labour/Co-operative Member of Parliament. Did he see last night’s BBC “Newsnight” programme in which there were shocking revelations about the pressure that the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put on the Co-op and the Co-op bank to take certain measures that destabilised the Co-op bank, which has a proud tradition of being a very different bank.

Andrew Lansley: I did not see that programme, so I cannot comment directly on what the hon. Gentleman alleges. My recollection is that the Treasury Committee is continuing to undertake an inquiry into the Co-operative bank. It is not for me to refer such matters, but he might like to refer any information he has to that Committee.

David Nuttall: May I add to the call that was made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for a debate on the UK’s set position in the European Union?
	Next Tuesday will see the announcement of the winner of the €100,000 “Brexit” prize, which is organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs. We have seen debates on the television and in the think-tanks. It seems bizarre to the public that this House is not debating what life would be like for the UK outside the EU. We should have an urgent debate before the European elections.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend asks for a debate before the European elections, but it seems to me that the European elections are about who we send to the European Parliament. The debate between now and the European parliamentary elections should be about sending Conservative Members of the European Parliament, as we have in the past and will again in the future, who will go there and fight for British interests, vote against measures that are not in this country’s interests and promote competitiveness and deregulation in the European Union. That is what the European parliamentary election is about. At the same time, we might have a further opportunity in the course of the next Session in this House to debate through a private Member’s Bill how the people of this country can have their say in a referendum. That is a critical issue in getting such a debate to happen.

Andy Slaughter: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is bidding for foundation trust status so that it can take advantage of the Government’s hospital closure programme and sell off half of Charing Cross and Saint Mary’s hospitals, which the people who pay for the NHS, my constituents, do not want. May we have a debate on NHS land sales, and may we have it before 22 May and the local elections? Since Labour made this an election issue, the decision to close Charing Cross has unaccountably been put back to the week after the poll.

Andrew Lansley: One might imagine on hearing the hon. Gentleman that foundation trust status had been introduced by this Government when, of course, it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It certainly gives freedoms but, as it happens, it does not give a trust any greater freedom to sell property than it would have as an NHS trust. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s description of the purposes of acquiring foundation trust status does not match up with what Imperial College Healthcare itself believes. Many other trusts, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, have used their freedoms to enable them to invest in additional capital, including new buildings, to improve the quality of the service they provide for patients.

John Glen: Roslyn Earle has been forced out of her flooded home because her insurance was placed with an Icelandic company that had its licence withdrawn at the point at which she made the claim. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister about how the Government will address such issues and ensure that my constituent can get the payout she thought she had paid for and she clearly deserves?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly raises his constituent’s concerns and I am sure that people share them, but individual cases are not matters that Ministers can engage with directly. We have created a proper
	framework through the Prudential Regulation Authority for the regulation of institutions that accept deposits or effect insurance contracts. The PRA is fully operationally independent in carrying out those statutory responsibilities, so, if I may, I will ask it to write to my hon. Friend on this matter.

Stuart Andrew: As part of its bid for part of the £2 billion local growth fund, the Leeds city partnership has produced an excellent video in which it highlights that it is the second largest economy in the UK, with 106,000 businesses, the largest manufacturing base in the UK and eight universities, and that it has the drive, confidence and ambition needed to help rebalance our economy. May we have a debate on the local growth fund to highlight such excellent work aimed at rebuilding our economy?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that issue, which is important. I remember—this is going back 30 years—that when others were bemoaning the loss of manufacturing and economic changes, Leeds simply said that those things were changing and that it would therefore become a city focused on the development of financial services. That process was Leeds-led, not imposed from outside. The point of the Government’s work with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities is to enable exactly that kind of local leadership to define a strategy for each area. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for cities and the constitution, is leading negotiations with all the local enterprise partnerships between now and July with a view to signing a growth deal with each one, including a share of the local growth fund for projects that will start from April of next year. I am confident that the Leeds city region will be prominent in those deals.

Chris White: Last week the European Commission finally approved the Government’s plan to offer tax relief to video games producers in the UK. This relief will provide a huge boost for the industry, especially the many games industries based in Silicon Spa in my constituency. May we have a debate on the contribution of the creative industries to the wider economy?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that one would be useful because it would allow us to highlight exactly what my hon. Friend refers to, which is a great success story for this country. The creative industries export £15.5 billion in 2011—some 8% of total UK service exports. They account for 1.68 million jobs and more than £70 billion of output, which is more than 5% of the whole UK economy. It is not just large but highly competitive, and it has a comparative advantage in this country. It is one of the sectors where that is increasingly true, and it is our job to create the framework for it to succeed in the future.

Michael Fabricant: You, Mr Speaker, will know that the Government Whips Office normally operates like a well-oiled machine, yet on this occasion it appears that the Whips believe that there is no interest in HS2 and Second Reading can be held on just one day, even though 40 Members of Parliament will be affected
	by HS2, it will cost £50 billion and many Members of the House are both for and against it. Can you pass on to the Government Chief Whip that that is not the case, that many Members of Parliament want to speak both for and against HS2 and that it will require at least two days for Second Reading?

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply note in passing that the hon. Gentleman may believe that the halcyon days were when he was a member of that Office. I know not.

Andrew Lansley: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Whips Office is undiminished. The Whips will have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. For my part, I have announced the business up to and including Monday 28 April, and I will announce the business beyond that day in due course.

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Jane Ellison: With permission Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the publication of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report on the standardised packaging of tobacco products.
	Smoking kills nearly 80,000 people each year in England alone. One out of two long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related disease and our cancer outcomes stubbornly lag behind those of much of Europe. Quite apart from the enormous pressure that this creates for the NHS, it is a cruel waste of human potential. Yet we know that the vast majority of smokers want to quit, and we also know that, tragically, two thirds of smokers become addicted before they are 18. As a nation, therefore, we should consider every effective measure we can to stop children taking up smoking in the first place.
	That is why, in November last year, I asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of whether the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. Sir Cyril has presented his report to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and yesterday we had the benefit of a personal briefing from Sir Cyril, in which he highlighted the key conclusions of his review. Having reviewed Sir Cyril’s findings, I was keen to share this important report with the House without delay, as I recognise the significant interest shown by many Members. I will of course place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The evidence has been examined, the arguments for and against have been thoroughly explored and their merit assessed by Sir Cyril, who visited Australia in the course of the review. I asked in particular that the report focus on the potential of standardised packaging to have an impact on the health of children. It is clear that smoking is a disease of adolescence and we know that across the UK, more than 200,000 children aged between 11 and 15 start smoking every year: in other words, about 600 children start smoking in the UK every day. Many of those children will grow up with a nicotine addiction that they will find extremely difficult to break, and that is a tragedy for those young people, their families and the public health of our nation. Sir Cyril points out that if this rate of smoking by children were reduced by even 2%, it would mean that 4,000 fewer children took up smoking each year.
	Sir Cyril’s report makes the compelling case that if standardised packaging were introduced, it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health, and that the health benefits would include benefits for children. The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has read Sir Cyril’s report. She sent me a letter with her initial views in which she said:
	“the Chantler review only reinforces my beliefs of the public health gains to be achieved from standardised packaging”.
	I have placed copies of Dame Sally’s letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Importantly, the report highlights that any such policy must be seen in the round, as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures, and that is exactly
	how I see the potential of standardised packaging working in this country. In the light of the report and the responses to the previous consultation in 2012, I am minded to proceed with introducing regulations to provide for standardised packaging. However, to ensure that that decision is properly and fully informed, I intend to publish draft regulations, so that what is intended is crystal clear, alongside a final, short consultation in which I will ask in particular for views on anything new that has arisen since the last full public consultation and that is relevant to a final decision on the policy. I will announce details of the content and timing shortly, but I invite those with an interest to start considering any responses they might wish to make now. The House will understand that I want to proceed as swiftly as possible. Parliament gave us the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014.
	I pay tribute to Sir Cyril and his team for the excellent job they have done in preparing such a thorough analysis of the available evidence on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. I believe that the report will be widely acknowledged for its forensic approach and authoritative conclusions. We want our nation’s children to grow up happy and healthy, and free from the heavy burden of disease that tobacco brings. I commend the statement and Sir Cyril’s report to the House.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for an hour’s advance notice of her statement. May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Sir Cyril Chantler and his team for their excellent review? I welcomed some of what the Minister said, but I want to probe her on several issues.
	We know that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year. One in two long-term smokers die prematurely due to smoking-related diseases, and two thirds of adult smokers took up smoking as children. As Sir Cyril says, if we can reduce that figure by even 2%, 4,000 fewer children will take up smoking each year. For that reason, I strongly welcome the fact that Sir Cyril’s review confirms what public health experts have been arguing for some time: standardised packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people and could help to save lives.
	Sir Cyril’s remit was to consider whether standardised packaging would lead to a decrease in tobacco consumption. Does not the Minister accept that his conclusion is clear that
	“standardised packaging would serve to reduce the rate of children taking up smoking”
	and could lead to an “important reduction” of uptake and prevalence, and have a “positive impact” on public health? Of course, that is something that all the previous evidence reviews have already shown. Indeed, Sir Cyril says:
	“my overall findings are not dissimilar to those of previous reviews.”
	Did not the Government’s own systematic review in 2012, which Sir Cyril describes as “extensive” and “authoritative”, conclude that standardised packaging is less appealing than branded packaging, makes health warnings more prominent and refutes the utter falsehood
	that some brands are healthier than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united on this and the majority of responses to the Government’s consultation favoured such an approach, so does the Minister finally accept that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and that there can be no excuse for further delay?
	You will know, Mr Speaker, that Labour has long been calling for the immediate introduction of standardised packaging. For every step that we took in government, the tobacco industry adopted a new approach. After we banned advertising, tobacco manufacturers developed increasingly sophisticated marketing devices for their packaging. In the words of Simon Clark of the tobacco-funded lobby group FOREST and the “Hands Off Our Packs!” campaign:
	“It’s like showing them a picture of a Lamborghini and a beaten up Ford Escort and saying, ‘Which one do you prefer?’”
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Health Secretary, he was clear that the next front in the fight against tobacco should be packaging. The question is why have we had to wait so long? More than 70,000 children will have taken up smoking since the Minister announced the review, and today she has announced yet another consultation. The Government have already had a consultation that reported less than a year ago. What does the hon. Lady expect to change? Let me remind her of the words of the Health Minister in the other place, Earl Howe, who said:
	“we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 1251.]
	Why is the Minister now kicking the matter into the long grass? How many more children will take up smoking before this Government make a decision? Does the Minister not accept that it was the clear will of both Houses of Parliament to proceed with standardised packaging, and is this not yet another example of how her Government are caving in to vested interests and standing up for the wrong people?

Jane Ellison: The hon. Lady’s response serves to illustrate the difference between opposition and government. I agree that Sir Cyril has produced a compelling report; I recommended it to the House and urged everybody to take the opportunity to read it. He has made a compelling case on the public health evidence, but to make robust policy in this area it is essential that we follow a careful process. That means we have to look at everything in the round, and we have to give everybody who has a stake in the decision an opportunity to make their case. That is what we will proceed to do. /I have drawn the House’s attention in the past to the fact that the Australian Government are still engaged in litigation in this area. We need to proceed in a sensible way, but I could not have given the House a clearer indication of the fact that we are moving at the pace dictated by a sensible and robust policy approach. That is the requirement for making good policy.
	I am glad the hon. Lady drew attention to Sir Cyril’s review of the evidence from the Stirling review. He did more than just look at the Stirling review; he commissioned independent academic review of its methodology and concluded that it was robust. That is part of his review. As I said, I urge Members to look at that.
	Members will have heard the hon. Lady’s response. I can only say to her that at every stage we have proceeded in a sensible, measured but clear way. We took the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014, for which there was a large parliamentary majority. We will publish draft regulations alongside the final short consultation to look at the wider issues, and we will then move as swiftly as possible to a final decision based on all those elements. That gives the House a clear sense of our direction of travel. I want to make sure that, whatever decision the Government finally take, it is robust and one that everyone can have confidence in.

Gerald Howarth: It is most unfortunate that this statement has been made today, when so few Members who take an interest in these matters are present. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument is that we should ban tobacco altogether if it does so much damage to our people. I do not believe this is a Conservative measure. It is an example of the nanny state. I see the Secretary of State whispering into my hon. Friend’s ear—I hope he is whispering some sound advice to her. At present 13% of packs sold are illicit, denying the Treasury £3 billion. If the Australian experience is anything to go by, that number is likely to rocket. What does the Minister say to that?

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Taking every possible effective measure to stop children smoking is the mark of a sensible state, not a nanny state. I do not think any Member of the House would want any extra child to take up smoking, so every Government should look clearly at any effective policy that can serve to advance the achievement of our ends in that regard. Sir Cyril devotes a significant chapter in his report to illicit tobacco products, and I urge my hon. Friend to read it. Of the arguments in that area, Sir Cyril says, “I am not convinced”.

Diane Abbott: The House listened with care to the Minister’s statement, and the backlash from her own Back-Benchers was predictable. The medical profession and doughty campaigners such as Action on Smoking and Health will be very glad that we are making progress on this issue. Can she confirm that she will bring forward the regulations before Christmas, so that standardised packaging is a reality before the general election?

Jane Ellison: I welcome the hon. Lady’s response. I know that she, as a former shadow Public Health Minister, takes a great interest in this area. I want to publish the draft regulations this month, alongside the short final consultation. The timetable that the Government are contemplating once a final decision is made should allow us to introduce the measure during this Parliament.

Angela Watkinson: I support my hon. Friend’s measures to reduce the number of young people smoking, but she will not be surprised to hear that I do not support this measure. Only 5% of under-15s smoke, which is the lowest level for a generation. The Government’s anti-smoking measures that are already in place are clearly working. There are smoking cessation classes and posters in the streets and in every publication we pick up; there are television
	adverts warning people constantly about the health risks of smoking. Nobody in this country smokes in ignorance. The people who smoke make a deliberate choice to do so—they deliberately ignore all the warnings that are made available to them. We also must not forget parental responsibility in this, because parents are responsible for their children’s habits and for how much money they have to spend unsupervised—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are deeply obliged to the hon. Lady.

Jane Ellison: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for measures that can be effective in preventing children taking up smoking and urge her to read the detail of Sir Cyril’s report, which addresses directly some of the points she raises. She is right to draw attention to the fact that all these measures are taken in the round as part of a wider package of anti-tobacco measures. We are considering standardised packaging against the backdrop of some important steps taken in recent months, not least Parliament voting overwhelmingly for a ban on smoking in cars with children, and we have also brought forward measures to prevent proxy purchasing of tobacco by adults for children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the House, but so far it is not obvious to me that we have had questions; we have had what might be described as lengthy volleys of words, which are not quite the same thing. If we can have short questions and short answers, we might have a reasonable chance of making effective progress towards subsequent business. Let us be led in that important mission by Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: I obviously welcome the Minister’s statement, but given the evidence from Sir Cyril, from Australia and Canada and from the Health Committee, will she update the House on a possible time frame? “Before 2015” is too vague.

Jane Ellison: As I said, I want to publish the draft regulations alongside the short final consultation to look at any final points people want to make about the wider aspects of the policy. It is important that we do that to move forward in a way that is robust and sensible and that shows that we have considered everything in the round. I want to do that this month; then, if we decide to proceed, we will move to give the House a final decision before the summer recess. There is no reason why the legislation could not be brought before the House before the end of this Parliament.

Philip Davies: The Minister’s nanny state instincts do not come as a great surprise. Can she tell us why she set up the review in the first place? Is it because she was not capable of assessing all the evidence herself and making a decision, or because she had already decided what she wanted to do but did not have the guts to announce it and so wanted to use taxpayers’ money to hide behind a review? Whichever it is, it does not inspire confidence. Such decisions should not be farmed out to someone who is unelected and totally unaccountable.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend does not surprise me with his response. Ministers will make the final decision following the process I have outlined, having given regard not only to Sir Cyril’s excellent report but to the other matters I have said we will consider. On this, I cannot agree with him. No one is bringing forward measures to ban smoking; rather, we are all now able to show our support for measures that might have the potential to stop children taking up smoking. I cannot believe that he cannot agree with that. The vast majority of the public are with us, and I fear that in this case he is in danger, very rarely, of being an unpopular populist.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is very passionate about these issues, but she needs to recognise that tobacco smuggling costs the taxpayer £2.2 billion every year. It is clear from evidence given by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the Home Affairs Committee, which is looking at tobacco smuggling, that the data do not exist to support the view that plain packaging will make that much difference. Will she work with the tobacco companies, within her time frame, to make sure that we can track those who use legitimate production for illicit and illegal means? We have to stop illicit smuggling.

Jane Ellison: I welcome those comments by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I know that his Committee is undertaking work on illicit tobacco, and it would be very welcome and helpful if it put its draft report or final evidence into the consultation. If he has not already had the opportunity to do so, I urge him to look at the chapter of the report that Sir Cyril devotes to this matter, which I think he will find of great interest. This is one of the wider issues on which the final short consultation will enable people to put their concerns on record so that they can be weighed in the balance.

Mark Harper: I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s statement. I am slightly surprised by Labour Members’ response, given that when in government they said that they needed
	“strong and convincing evidence of the benefits to health, as well as…workability”.––[Official Report, Health Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2009; c. 305.]
	Their response was therefore a little churlish. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made some sensible points on the risks of smuggling. I will look at Sir Cyril’s report carefully, including the section on that subject, before I study the regulations when the decision is put to the House. I thank the Minister for her careful and thorough statement.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The issue is looked at in some detail, and as I said, Sir Cyril said that he was not convinced by the arguments in this respect.

Barry Gardiner: I came to the House prepared to attack the Minister because I thought she was going to kick this into the long grass. I am absolutely delighted that she has assured the House that she is not going to do that. In the light of the reception from her own Back Benchers, which I am afraid has not been friendly, she can at least be assured of the friendliness from those on the Labour Benches. She is doing exactly
	the right thing. My father died of lung cancer when I was eight, so I never took up smoking, but many of my friends did. They are now dead and I am still going. What the Minister is doing today will mean that more children will not take up smoking in the first place.

Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those generous comments. I think that many people in the House will have had their personal family situation touched in the way that he mentions. I never knew my grandparents, so I recognise the power of what he says. We are proceeding, as I hope the House can see, in a sensible but robust way. I have signalled my view that I am minded, as a Health Minister, to accept Sir Cyril’s report and the evidence therein, but there are other considerations, and we will take those into account and bring a final decision to the House as soon as possible.

Andrew Bingham: Is the Minister aware of the anti-counterfeiting measures that are taken in relation to the current packaging of cigarette papers? Is she worried, as I am, that the introduction of plain-paper packaging would remove those measures and thus increase the possibility of counterfeiting and misrepresentation of—let us say—illicit tobacco?

Jane Ellison: The report is not about plain packaging but standardised packaging, which is quite different. Sir Cyril’s report helpfully pulls apart the differences and makes them clear for the reader. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is addressed in the report, and it was given a lot of consideration in the 2012 consultation. I can pay testament to the fact that that was an exhaustive and very thorough consultation, because I have spent much of the past few days, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, reviewing the evidence and submissions to it. These points have therefore been put on the record, but there will be a final opportunity in the forthcoming consultation to make them again, and they will be considered.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am a non-smoker and I do not want to see young people smoking, but I have concerns about standardised packaging, for two reasons. One is illicit trade, and I will give evidence on that and perhaps meet the Minister and her colleagues about that illicit trade and its impact on our constituencies. Also, I represent a number of print workers. There is an issue about jobs and the effects on the packaging industry. I hope she will take that into consideration.

Jane Ellison: The hon. Gentleman mentions illicit trade. As I have said a number of times, it is addressed in the report, but there will be other opportunities to discuss that. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that stopping illicit tobacco coming into the country is the job of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It has had great success in that regard over recent years. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s point about jobs, we will publish a full impact assessment alongside draft regulations at the same time as the final consultation. Jobs will be one of the issues in that impact assessment.

Fiona Bruce: I strongly support the Minister’s statement and proposals. Does she agree that if 4,000 children a year can be discouraged from
	taking up smoking there will be a double public health win—not only better health outcomes for those 4,000, but the release of funds for the health treatment of others in their generation for illnesses and disease? Those funds would otherwise have to be used, in time, to treat many of those 4,000 for smoking-related diseases.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the extent to which we can bear down on smoking and stop people taking it up the first place has a major impact on the sustainability of our health services and will, as she says, free up more resources to be spent on other things. It is a very important health priority. She is also right to allude to the impact of, for example, 4,000 children not taking up smoking. Even a modest impact on a major killer is really important.

Diana Johnson: If the Minister is able to get the regulations past her own Back Benchers—and I note that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) failed to declare an interest, as she registered hospitality from Japan Tobacco International on 12 June 2013—when will we see standardised packaging on the shelves? When will that be, should she get the regulations through in the last Session of this Parliament?

Jane Ellison: Once the Government have made a final decision—and in the event that that decision is to proceed and it is approved in this Parliament—there will be a transition period, as there always is with any tobacco regulations. Because we have not yet made a final decision, we have not decided what that period will be, but there would always be a sell-through period—that has been the precedent set in the past. We are not able to be absolutely definite at this point because of that sell-through period, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about previous sell-through periods for similar legislation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the Minister for making it possible for Back-Bench MPs to go to the Ministry to read the report this morning. That was a great courtesy and was helpful to parliamentary scrutiny. I bring to her attention two points from that report. First, Sir Cyril Chantler notes that it is
	“too early to draw definitive conclusions”
	from what has happened in Australia. Secondly, in paragraph 4.21, he says that the research that has been done has been based on “stated intentions” and that those are known to be ones that have to be used with care. He says:
	“This caution is justified, and to that extent the findings are essentially indirect and ‘speculative’.”
	As the Government may be taking away a freedom from the British people, ought they not to be more certain of their ground than they can be of the ground they currently have from Sir Cyril Chantler?

Jane Ellison: The Government are not proposing to take away anyone’s freedom. Our tobacco control measures aim to prevent children from taking up smoking in the first place, which is quite a different thing. On my hon. Friend’s detailed point, Members of Parliament will,
	like anyone else, be able to make submissions to the final consultation. Once Members have had the chance to read the report thoroughly, any submissions they may wish to make will, of course, be most welcome and they will be considered.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the hon. Lady’s statement and although she is right to take into account factors other than the health of the nation that have been raised by hon. Members, will she confirm that her primary consideration in handling this policy will be the health of the nation and that she will drive it through as quickly as possible?

Jane Ellison: I am the Minister for public health and as I said in my statement we are currently minded, based on the compelling evidence to which Sir Cyril alludes in his report, to proceed, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that policy is made in the round.

Andrew Miller: Health is what is most important.

Jane Ellison: Health is, of course, very important, particularly the health of our nation’s children, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.

Mike Thornton: Given that eight out of 10 people start smoking under the age of 19—in their teens—does the Minister agree that one of the most effective child protection measures we can take is to help them not to start smoking in the first place?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is exactly right and I believe that all Members want to see fewer children taking up smoking. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that the places where children take up smoking are very unevenly distributed. On maintaining the Government’s duty on health inequality, which we have put in statute, measures to prevent young people and children from taking up smoking directly address some key health inequality issues.

Paul Flynn: Of course, this is not a Conservative statement, because it is evidence-based, prejudice-free and intelligent. Will the Minister add further lustre to her reputation by starting an investigation into the potential danger of electronic cigarettes normalising smoking?

Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sir Cyril’s report makes a brief reference to the normalisation issue and I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to read that. Of course, the Government have moved to ban the selling of e-cigarettes to under-18s—a move that was supported by the e-cigarette industry for the most part.

Christopher Chope: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What evidence is there that young people do not access illegal drugs as much because they are sold in plain packages?

Jane Ellison: I refer my hon. Friend to Sir Cyril’s report, where he will find 30-odd pages of extremely well-argued, authoritative comment by someone who has looked very deeply and widely at the issues over the past few months.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I also place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for making available an early copy of the report so that we could study it? The Minister said that there is compelling evidence, but Sir Cyril Chantler’s report says that he has
	“not seen evidence that allows me to quantify the size of the likely impact of standardised packaging”,
	other than a “modest” reduction.
	Will the Minister now commit to awaiting the outcome of the Home Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which will be important in determining the impact of the policy? Will she also consider the outcome of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which showed that illicit trade is on the increase and is costing this Government billions of pounds a year? Finally, will the Minister have a word with and say something to 1,000 of my constituents who have been put on notice by today’s decision that they are not valued and that their jobs are over because of this Government?

Jane Ellison: I have already said quite a lot about illicit trade. It is mentioned in the report, which the hon. Gentleman has obviously had a chance to look at. He quoted the word “modest” but, as I said just a moment ago, even a modest impact on a major killer is very important. As a Health Minister, I regularly answer parliamentary questions and letters from colleagues throughout the House on issues that affect far fewer children than 4,000 a year. We have spoken privately and exchanged correspondence on the issue of jobs. The impact assessment will reflect on it and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a submission to the final consultation.

David Nuttall: Human nature being what it is, does my hon. Friend not agree that one unintended consequence of hiding cigarettes behind shutters and putting them in standardised packages is that it may only increase the desire of inquisitive children to take up smoking?

Jane Ellison: I urge my hon. Friend to look at the report and to reflect on the fact that anything we can do to discourage children from taking up smoking is likely to have a lifelong effect not only on them, but on their families. I urge him to look at the detail of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report.

Kevin Brennan: I urge the Minister not to be swayed by those lobbying on counterfeiting and packaging, because this is a deadly, addictive drug. Coffin nails are coffin nails whatever packaging they come in. Given the interest in this subject, does she intend to introduce regulations on the Floor of the House to be debated and voted on?

Jane Ellison: It is indeed our intention to put the regulations through the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the issue of children and addiction. There are some extremely interesting points about that in Sir Cyril’s report, reflecting academic studies on children and addiction, including the fact that children become addicted at a faster speed than adults.

Paul Beresford: I obviously have an interest in this particular area. May I say to those hon. Members who are protesting that if I could arrange for them to come into an operating theatre and see the damage that oral cancer does to people, they might actually change their mind?

Philip Davies: Ban it then. Ban smoking.

Paul Beresford: I am ignoring the interruptions. I am particularly pleased by what the Minister has said and I thank her for it. I encourage her to move this nation ahead first, as I hope she will, rather than to wait for the Australians?

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and support. He speaks from a position of knowledge, which is always a good position from which to speak. Sir Cyril and his team visited Australia, and hon. Members can find reflections on the Australian experience to date in the report. We are proceeding on our own timetable, not waiting for the end of Australian litigation on this subject.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend has made many references to Sir Cyril’s conclusions on illicit tobacco, but what conversations did she have with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Force before making this statement? At the port of Tilbury in my constituency, we are waging a war against tobacco smuggling, and my fear is that standardised packaging will make beating it in that war even more difficult.

Jane Ellison: In the course of policy making, HMRC’s views have very much been sought and taken into account, and it will certainly be part of the final consultation. It is fair to put on the record the fact that HMRC has had considerable success in fighting smuggling over recent years. I of course acknowledge my hon. Friend’s concerns, but I urge her to read the report and to understand the connections between price and illicit tobacco, and to read what Sir Cyril says about the information gleaned from Australia and from our own experience.

Peter Bottomley: Since Richard Doll and Bradford Hill’s report in 1950 and the 50-year study of British doctors from 1951 to 2001 by Richard Doll and Richard Peto, we have known that an over-£50-a-week habit, after tax, does no good to anybody at all. As well as talking about standardisation, which may or may not make a difference, will my hon. Friend make plain to those who smoke that they should not smoke in front of someone younger and that they should not be the first person in a group to light up? That way, we can reduce the incidence of smoking, which will also reduce the number of smokers.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right to emphasis again the importance that we all place on children not taking up smoking in the first place. Children who start smoking when they are young find it especially difficult to quit. We know that that particularly affects children in more deprived communities, and it often adds to the burden of disease that they carry through their lives.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should always pay careful attention to advice from knights like Sir Cyril? Will she confirm that this is a forensic report that is based on the best evidence, and that the Government are approaching the matter entirely on the basis of the best science? Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) that if the Government did not consult properly on the regulations, far from speeding up matters, it would delay them? I assure the hon. Lady that my colleagues in the Temple would be over the road with an application for judicial review before one could say ban on anything.

Jane Ellison: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is in danger of becoming my second favourite knight of the day. I know that he speaks from personal experience. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the need to make policy carefully in this area. That is what we are proceeding to do. He illustrated the point better than I could have done.

Matthew Offord: I stand in support of the statement. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that she has taken. Has she had an opportunity to look at the Australian experience to see how we might reduce the illicit trade in cigarettes and cigarette smuggling?

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. There is a significant chapter about illicit trade in the report and there are reflections on the Australian experience throughout it. If the Government’s final decision is to move ahead, we will look to glean everything we can from the Australian experience.

Therese Coffey: In November 2009, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) wrote in a letter to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) that
	“no studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the number of young people smoking or enable people who want to quit, to do so.”
	I would be grateful to hear, because not all of us have had a chance to read the report, what additional studies have led Sir Cyril and my hon. Friend to reach the conclusion that she has set out today?

Jane Ellison: When my hon. Friend has a chance to look at the report, she will see that there have been a number of new reports in recent years. Sir Cyril commissioned an independent academic review that considered not just the Stirling review, which looked at more than 37 academic reviews on the subject, but the supplement to that, which was published in 2013. He concluded that the reviews were very robust. Much of his report is devoted to a scientific and forensic examination of the methodology used in those reviews. I commend it to her.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that 15,000 people die from alcohol-related diseases every year in Britain? The logical extension of what she is proposing is that we put brown paper bags over all alcohol. Does she not agree that Conservatives believe in freedom and that the best way to stop smoking is through education, not by banning things? This measure
	will have a significant impact not just on smuggling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, but on small shops and small businesses.

Jane Ellison: First, I must correct my hon. Friend on one thing. The Government are not proposing to ban anything. I made that quite clear. Secondly, alcohol that is enjoyed in moderation does not do people great harm, but there is no way of enjoying tobacco in moderation that does not harm people’s health. Smoking is a completely different subject from all the others that Members seek to link it to. My hon. Friend wrote to me recently to ask what Health Ministers were doing about cancer in Essex. The more we do to bear down on tobacco use among children, the greater our chances of tackling cancer in Essex and elsewhere.

Nigel Mills: The Minister must know that she will never satisfy the health lobby on this issue. It has moved on to the idea of banning smoking for anyone born after the year 2000. Will she confirm that that is not part of her strategy?

Jane Ellison: The Government have a tobacco strategy that has been published. Today, I am presenting a statement about standardised tobacco packaging and nothing else.

Chris Skidmore: In my constituency the printer Amcor prints more than 5 billion cigarette packets a year and is one of the largest manufacturing companies of its kind in the country. The factory employs 150 local people and there is a manufacturing train of more than 1,000 local people. I support any measures that will reduce smoking among impressionable young people, but when the Minister talks of standardised packaging, is there any chance that after the review is conducted she can talk of “standardised and complex” packaging, to secure those local jobs at Amcor and other printing companies across the country?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that standardised packaging is complex and far from the plain brown paper packs sometimes portrayed. Sir Cyril mentions that issue and draws a clear distinction in his report. I would welcome my hon. Friend making a submission to the consultation about the impact of this measure on employment in his constituency. That will of course be weighed in the balance, but it is important constantly to remind the House of the enormous economic impact of the burden of disease on our population.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome and support the statement, but what about the 196,000 children a year who take up smoking and who will not desist as a result of this measure? Can my hon. Friend give any feedback on the success of the measures the Government have already introduced in education and other areas to stop children starting to smoke?

Jane Ellison: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the statement and thank him for it. In April next year, tobacco displays will be behind closed doors, and tobacco vending machines have been banned. He will know that a great deal of money and effort has been put into education, and we are starting to see the fruits of that as
	the number of smokers in our country has dipped below 20% for the first time. The Government are always open to ideas about effective measures that will stop children taking up smoking in the first place, and I am always extremely happy to hear from my hon. Friend about that.

Priti Patel: The Minister will be aware that the all-party small shops group has been following this issue with a great deal of interest for some time. Will she ensure that the impact on small shops will not be overlooked in the process she has outlined today, and will she acknowledge the work of independent retailers who already do a tremendous job in preventing the sale of tobacco to young children?

Jane Ellison: As a former retailer, I know only too well that a responsible retailer can play an important role in stopping children who should not be buying cigarettes doing so. Indeed, I alluded to that and gave credit for it when we introduced regulations on proxy purchasing, which I know were welcomed by many small retailers. Retailers gave extensive evidence to the 2012 consultation, and they will be able to give any updated evidence on anything that is new to the final consultation.

Nick Smith: I commend the Minister for her statement. Will she clarify for the House whether the regulations will be applicable to Wales, and whether she has had the opportunity to raise them with the Welsh Government?

Jane Ellison: We have sought at all times to keep the devolved Administrations aware of progress in this area, and our officials have spoken to officials in those Administrations about the matter. I hope to have the chance to speak to fellow Health Ministers in the next 24 hours, and if we proceed to bring forward the draft regulations, those are the points we will clarify.

Simon Hart: The Minister will be aware that it is already an offence to smoke in public under the age of 16 and to purchase tobacco under the age of 18. Would it be a good start to ensure that the current laws work before we start imposing new ones?

Jane Ellison: The Government are seeking to consider all measures that have an impact on children taking up smoking in the first place, and many of our laws and measures are beginning to bear fruit as smoking is at its lowest ever level in this country. Every child who takes up smoking is one child too many, and I urge Members to read Sir Cyril’s report and examine the evidence and what he says about the pressures on children. When Members have reflected on that, I hope they will join me in supporting any measure that can make an impact in this area.

John Glen: I welcome today’s statement and I support sensible evidence-based measures to curb smoking among the very young. However, I seek reassurance from the Minister about mission creep. Does she agree that chocolate, alcohol and sugary drinks are considerably less addictive and do not kill when consumed in moderation, and that the Government should not be looking to extend their remit into areas where we do not need more regulation?

Jane Ellison: Some of the issues to which my hon. Friend alludes have been debated on many occasions in the House. Today’s statement is about standardised tobacco packaging, not about banning anything. It is to consider the potential of this policy to stop children taking up smoking, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister keeps saying that this is not about banning anything, but she is proposing the banning of promotional packaging—that is what she is doing today. Before she does that, will she consider bringing the law in England into line with that in Scotland, where the sale to, purchase by, or possession in public of cigarettes by anyone under the age of 18 is illegal? That is not the case at the moment in England.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend draws attention to the Scottish regime, which has regulatory differences to our regime. It is a matter that I consider and that we keep under review. Indeed, where measures have proved to be effective in any jurisdiction, we take great interest in that.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister and to colleagues.

Personal Statement

Maria Miller: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement in relation to today’s report. The report resulted from an allegation made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and the Committee on Standards has dismissed his allegation. The Committee has recommended that I apologise to the House for my attitude to the Commissioner’s inquiries, and I, of course, unreservedly apologise. I fully accept the recommendations of the Committee, and thank it for bringing this matter to an end.

Bovine TB

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on bovine tuberculosis.
	Today I am publishing the Government’s strategy for achieving officially TB-free status for England. This disease is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK, and the crisis facing our cattle farmers, their families and communities cannot be overstated. It is a devastating zoonosis that threatens our cattle industry and presents risks to other livestock and wildlife species such as badgers, domestic pets and humans.
	In 1979 only 0.01% of British cattle tested as infected. The disease has now spread extensively from infected pockets in the south-west, and the number of new herd breakdowns has doubled every nine years. In the last decade we have slaughtered 314,000 otherwise healthy cattle across Great Britain in our attempt to control the disease. In 2013 more than 6.2 million TB tests were performed in England leading to the slaughter of 26,603 cattle. One quarter of herds in the south-west and the west midlands were placed under movement restrictions at some point, and in the last decade the issue has cost the taxpayer £500 million.
	If we do not control TB, the bill will rise to £1 billion over the next decade. It is vital that farmers, vets, non-governmental organisations and politicians work together to free England of TB. The value of this industry is £6.6 billion, and we want to ensure a thriving cattle sector that maintains our countryside, trades internationally and delivers economic growth.
	The current surveillance and control scheme is based on the traditional approach applied across Europe: routine skin testing of cattle, removal and slaughter of test reactors combined with post-mortem surveillance at slaughter, and movement controls placed on infected herds. In the absence of a major wildlife reservoir, that approach has been successful in allowing many EU countries and regions to achieve officially TB-free status. The same approach has reduced the spread of the disease in areas where TB is established, but on its own that is not enough.
	Where there is a reservoir of disease in wildlife, tackling TB will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. We are clear that culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment. I intend to pursue policies that will reverse the trend well before the end of this decade, so we need a control and eradication strategy with these clear aims at its heart. It must be dynamic, tailored to the sources of disease and the potential for eliminating it. It must adapt as new tools become available.
	We must learn the lessons from countries that have succeeded in tackling TB where there has been a reservoir of the disease in wildlife. I have visited Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and the USA. The vital lesson I have taken from these countries is the importance of stringent cattle control measures in combination with tackling the primary wildlife reservoir. Their programmes are either led by industry, or delivered by industry and Government working in partnership,
	with both parties contributing to the cost. We will need to adapt and apply the key elements of others’ eradication strategies to our countryside. However, the common thread is the sustained application of a control programme that addresses infection in cattle and wildlife.
	We already have a robust package of cattle measures, which we have steadily strengthened since 2011. Herds in high-risk areas, and on the edges of those areas, must be tested annually; herds in low-risk areas must be tested every four years. We also have slaughterhouse surveillance. Cattle moving from annual testing herds must be tested before they are moved. Where we find TB, we shut down the herd, slaughter the reactor cattle and carry out intensive testing in the herd and the surrounding herds. We continue to tighten our cattle measures. This year, we have reduced subsidy payments for farmers with overdue TB tests, enhanced measures for dealing with persistent breakdowns, and we recently announced a further tightening of pre-movement testing rules as well as new powers to slaughter cattle that cannot be tested.
	For the first time our strategy brings together all the tools we need to tackle the disease, including those currently available and those in development, such as a cattle vaccine. It sets targets by which we can measure progress towards achieving officially TB-free status. The strategy will simply not work without addressing the reservoir of TB infection in badgers. The option of using injectable badger vaccine has been available since 2010. However, the evidence shows that about a third of badgers in TB hotspot areas are infected. The vaccine does not cure them and they continue to spread the disease. We have some evidence that the vaccine provides protection to a proportion of uninfected badgers, but the vaccination needs to be repeated annually, and this presents many practical problems. However, while the injectable vaccine is far from perfect, it may help protect uninfected badgers away from the TB hotspots. That is why I am proposing a scheme for vaccination projects around the edge of the most badly affected parts of the country, in an attempt to create a buffer zone of TB immunity to stop the disease spreading further.
	The first year of two four-year culls took place in Gloucestershire and Somerset last autumn. These were pilots designed to test whether the controlled shooting of free-ranging badgers is safe, humane and effective. An independent panel of experts was appointed to assess the pilots. I am extremely grateful for their work. I have today placed the panel’s report, our response to it and our broader strategy in the Library of the House. We have always been clear that there would be lessons to be learned from the first year of these four-year culls. Having read and considered the report, we shall now work to implement the panel’s recommendations.
	The panel is confident that controlled shooting, when carried out in accordance with best practice guidance, poses no threat to public safety, even in the presence of local protest. This is an appropriate point to put on record my thanks to the cull companies and contractors who put so much effort into the culls. They went out night after night to battle TB, often in dreadful conditions, and often facing disgraceful intimidation from some of the more extreme protesters.
	The pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death. The panel made a number of key recommendations for improving the overall standards of accuracy and field craft of contractors, including training and assessment. I accept these recommendations and we are working to implement them with Natural England and the cull companies.
	On effectiveness, we already know from the figures we made public last year that the culls did not make as much progress as we hoped. This is confirmed by the independent expert panel, which has given its views on why this might have happened. Three of the 10 areas in the badger culling trials between 1998 and 2005 also got off to a slow start, but by the end of the trial they had contributed to a reduction in TB. That is what we expect to happen here, especially after the panel’s recommendations for improving the effectiveness of culling are put into action.
	The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place. We will work with Natural England and the industry to implement the changes. The cull companies will adapt their operational plans to ensure better consistency of coverage in the cull areas. They will incorporate more extensive training and real-time monitoring of cull effectiveness and humaneness by Natural England. We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas. I am also announcing a trial of a comprehensive farm-level risk management programme throughout the cull areas over the next three years. This will be available to all farmers, providing bespoke assessments and advice on how to protect their cattle.
	I am keen to develop new techniques to support the strategy. Over this Parliament, we are investing £24.6 million in the development of effective TB vaccines for cattle and badgers. Our scientists are leading the world in the development of a deployable cattle vaccine. In 2013, I agreed with the European Commissioner the work that was needed to develop a viable cattle vaccine. We are designing the large-scale field trials necessary to take this forward. I am committed to meeting the earliest deadline for its implementation, but the need for the field trials and required legislative changes means that a usable cattle vaccine is still many years away. In the future, an oral badger vaccine might address some of the problems of injectable vaccine deployment and serve as a targeted control measure. Some progress has been made, but we do not yet have an oral badger vaccine that is effective. We are also stepping up investment in the development of improved diagnostic tests such as DNA-based technologies, so that we can deploy a targeted approach to identify and remove TB-infected badgers only.
	The strategy recognises that achieving officially TB-free status for England will be a long haul. I am confident, however, that it is not beyond industry and Government working in partnership to achieve it for England in the time scales we envisage. My aim is for England to be free of TB by 2038, with healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.
	The four-year culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset are pilots, and we always said we would learn lessons from them. It is crucial we get this right. That is why we are taking a responsible approach, accepting recommendations from experts to make the pilots better. Doing nothing is not an option. Bovine TB is a terrible disease that is devastating our cattle and dairy industries, and causing misery for many people in rural communities. We need to do everything we can, as set out in our strategy, to make England TB-free. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement.
	I agree with the Secretary of State on one thing: there is no doubt that bovine TB is one of the most important issues facing farmers today. It is a scourge and a threat to their livelihoods, and to those of the communities they serve. The ultimate solution to the problem will take time, a carefully considered use of the resources available and an understanding of the best scientific advice. Sadly, none of these things featured prominently in the announcement the Secretary of State has just made. Consistent with his inept handling of this shambles, he has put prejudice before science, secrecy before transparency, conflict before consensus and posturing before good policy.
	Furthermore, he has completely ignored the will of the House, which only three weeks ago voted overwhelmingly to oppose his plans, to cancel the culls, and to seek alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Let me remind him that the result of the vote was 219 to 1, which by anyone’s estimate constituted a huge rejection of his policy and of the way in which he has handled the issue. He talks of a strategy, but there is no strategy here. This is an unscientific fudge with which he is trying to save his face.
	The Secretary of State announced that the failed culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset would continue, although the IEP report said that they were ineffective and inhumane. He had planned to extend the cull to 10 further areas this year, and to 40 in due course. Does he still plan to do that, and if so, when? He said that
	“culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment.”
	That is nonsense. Will he acknowledge that in Wales, where there has been no culling but there has been a vaccination programme, there has been a 48% decrease in the number of cattle slaughtered because of TB since 2009?
	The Secretary of State said that
	“the pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death.”
	The fact is that the IEP report said that it was not accurate in up to 22.8% of cases, enough for the panel to conclude that it was inhumane. How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the continuing use of a method of killing—free shooting—which has been found to be inhumane by independent scientific advisers?
	There seems to me to be no plan for independent oversight of the culls. If that is so—and perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify his intentions—I believe it to be a grave mistake. How can he justify it, given that the culls are very likely to increase TB risks to cattle
	unless they can kill more badgers more rapidly than in the pilots? What confidence can there be that that is being achieved if there is no independent oversight?
	When I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 March offering to work with him on the development of an evidence-based cross-party programme, he wrote back that he would publish his TB strategy shortly, and would then ensure that his officials briefed me on its contents. I should be grateful for such a briefing, but I am afraid that that attitude is symptomatic of the approach taken by the Secretary of State throughout this sorry episode. Rather than engaging meaningfully in a search for a proper, long-term solution, he ignores scientific evidence, makes a decision based on his own prejudice, and then offers retrospectively to tell me and other Members what the policy is, and expects us to agree with him.
	These are the facts. The IEP report shows that the Secretary of State’s disastrous culls are neither effective nor humane. It says that his plans will make the problem worse, not better. The two pilot culls failed to achieve their own success criterion of culling 70% of badgers in the six weeks. Against sound scientific evidence, they were extended, and then spectacularly failed again to cull the target number of badgers. The culls should be ended, not extended. They have not worked.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a scientific consensus that the risk posed by ending these failed culls is lower than the risk that continuing them will spread the disease through perturbation? Given that consensus, why is he proceeding with them? What assessment has he made of the total cost to the taxpayer, and to hard-pressed farmers, of continuing the culls with any semblance of humaneness? If he proceeds as described, his culls can no longer be called evidence-based policy, if they ever were. What he has announced today is simply an open season on badgers in the culling areas. Will he confirm that the Government will agree to hold a full debate on the Floor of the House and a binding vote, in Government time, on the future of the cull programme and the report of the independent expert panel?
	I believe that today’s statement falls far short of what farmers and the broader community deserve. Labour has made a series of reasonable, rational cross-party requests of the Government, none of which have been met so far, although the Government continually state that they want to deal with the issue on a cross-party basis. Labour will continue to work with farmers, wildlife groups and leading scientists to develop an alternative strategy to eradicate bovine TB. It would include tackling TB in badgers, focusing on vaccination; enhanced cattle measures, including compulsory pre and post-movement testing; a comprehensive risk-based trading system; and more robust biosecurity. We have said consistently that the culls are bad for farmers, bad for the taxpayer, and bad for our wildlife. The Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the roll-out of his disastrous badger cull programme means that Labour’s proposals are the only way out of this mess.

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and congratulate her on her use of alliteration.
	I remind the hon. Lady that between 1998 and 2010, under the Government she supported, the total number of herd breakdowns tripled from 1,226 to 3,634 and the
	number of cattle slaughtered rose sixfold, from 4,102 to 24,000. I also remind her that when we adopted a bipartisan approach back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we all but had this disease beat, with a prevalence of 0.01%. All that I ask is for her to work with us and follow the example of other nations with a severe reservoir of—
	[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We do not need this constant shouting from Members on both sides of the House, including Opposition Front Benchers. I do not want to hear it from the Government Whips, and I do not want to hear it from the Opposition Front Bench.

Owen Paterson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The position is very simple. The pilots were set up last year. The hon. Lady asked about the roll-out of our programme. We made clear that we would learn lessons: the IEP report contained some very helpful advice, and we will adopt it. We are acting responsibly by maintaining the two existing cull areas. The hon. Lady mentioned the risk of increasing disease. My chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, has stated emphatically that ending culling in the two existing areas would greatly increase the risk of the disease, and his very strong scientific advice is that it should continue.
	As for Wales, I am delighted that there has been a reduction in the disease there. According to the farmers in Wales to whom I have spoken, it may be due to the spike that occurred when annual testing was introduced recently. Given that the vaccination trial has only been taking place for two years in 1.5% of the land in Wales, to attribute it to vaccination is laughable.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of humaneness. The IEP report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died virtually instantly. However, there are clear lessons to be learned on how we can improve humaneness, which we are happy to adopt.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the number culled last year. I remind her that during the first year of the randomised badger culling trial that took place under the Government she supported, only 32%, 37% and 39% respectively were culled in three of the trial areas, but in those areas the culls did contribute to disease reduction later on.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned cost. We are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We simply must address the disease in cattle and in wildlife, as has happened in every other country to which I referred in my statement. [Interruption.] I have already touched on the subject of Wales and vaccination, but I repeat for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers who are chuntering from a sedentary position that it is not credible to attribute the reduction in Wales to a two-year vaccination programme that took place in 1.5% of the geographical area of Wales.
	The hon. Lady came up with a few ideas, and I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on all of them. On badger vaccination, I have announced that we want to establish a buffer zone at the edges of the worst affected areas, because treating healthy badgers with the current badger vaccine—however difficult it is to
	deploy, given that a third of badgers are trap-shy—may help to build up a buffer zone, and that is worth doing. Sadly, injecting diseased badgers in the hot-spot areas with cattle vaccine will not reduce the incidence of the disease. I think that we agree on that.
	The hon. Lady mentioned risk-based trading in connection with for cattle measures. We have already introduced that. I was very clear about this in my statement. If she looks at the strategy, she will see there are considerable new measures there, which are much stricter on cattle risk-based trading. It would be good if the hon. Lady went through our response to the independent panel so she sees that we are adopting its proposals, and went through our strategy, which shows that we are looking to bring in a whole range of tools. She should not just focus on culling of diseased badgers, although that is an important part, as we are bringing in a whole range of other measures, and down the road, as I made clear in the statement, I really do want to get to the position where we are leading the world on developing a cattle vaccine and where, above all, we can get better diagnostic techniques—possibly DNA systems—which can diagnose disease in cattle and in badgers.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the strategy and the fact that the Government are going to implement the panel recommendations. The public will be very alarmed that TB is now spreading through pets, and I hope the Secretary of State can address that. I urge him to give the House an assurance on the date when the field trials will take place and the timetable for the legislative changes, and will he also look favourably on the sterilisation programme which is being developed in my constituency?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her questions. On the development of cattle vaccine, which I think she was asking about, we do not have an immediate timetable when we can start. These are complex, difficult trials and we need to work out, working closely with the European Commission, how we bring them in in practical terms. A major issue is what we do with the animals that may have been treated, because we have to decide whether they can go for human consumption or not.

Andrew Miller: Like the Secretary of State, I think it is important that the House tries to work together, because whatever happens next spring I suspect the coalition will not exist. [Interruption.] I am certain about it. Will he agree, in keeping with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees, to publish all the scientific advice he has received? I remind him that the code of practice says that only in the exceptional circumstances of matters of national security should it be withheld. It needs to be published, including, for example, the advice the Secretary of State has received on the tiny risks related to pets.

Owen Paterson: We are very clear in the document. The hon. Gentleman should read the strategy, as there is a significant amount of information in it, including references to where we have got advice from.

Roger Williams: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament,
	I have been following the development of vaccines for badgers and cattle and I commend the Secretary of State on continuing that work, but he knows that a test that could identify diseased badgers so we could eliminate them and vaccinate the healthy badgers would really take us forward. Can he tell the House what progress is being made on those matters?

Owen Paterson: I think my hon. Friend and I will be in total agreement that it would be a huge change in the whole debate if we could establish some form of polymerase chain reaction technology using DNA where we could identify and differentiate diseased and healthy cattle and, above all, diseased and healthy badgers. We are pressing on with that—we have done a lot of work with Warwick university—because I do think this would change the whole debate, and if we could target culling, it would be so much better and so much quicker and make it more effective.

Angela Smith: For the sake of the record of the House, can the Secretary of State be clear about the decision relating to the roll-out of the culls? Is the roll-out cancelled or is it scheduled for a further date, and if so, when will the culls be rolled out?

Owen Paterson: I am very happy to clarify that, but I thought I made it clear in the statement. What we are saying is that there are clear lessons to be learned from the panel report, and clear lessons in practical terms that we learned from the cull companies, so sensibly we are continuing with the existing two pilots so we can perfect this system of removing diseased wildlife. Once we are happy we have got that system perfected, we will look to a further roll-out. The original intention was to have 10 areas, and we have over 30 expressions of interest from around the country. [Interruption.] Those chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench should not underestimate the desperation in cattle areas and the frustration that we cannot go faster. It is clear from the panel report that we need to perfect this particular method of removing diseased badgers before rolling out further. However, it is emphatically our decision to roll out further once the technique is perfected.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome the vaccination programme around infection hot spots, but the skin test is clearly failing as the number of carcases rejected post-slaughter more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 and is increasing again this year. My constituents, such as Simon Cotton, are having cattle which have passed the skin test condemned without compensation at slaughter. The Government are consulting on a risk-based trading strategy which is completely flawed because it is based on the skin test, and the electronic device that Nottingham Trent university is working on is supposed to be three years away. What can the Secretary of State do to save my constituents from the total loss of condemned carcases and having their time wasted on futile consultations and their cats infected, all because we do not have a proper skin test?

Owen Paterson: Our proposal is for badger vaccination on the edge of the hot-spot areas. There is no point in vaccinating in the hot spots as, sadly, the animals are already diseased and infected. The idea is to get a buffer zone around the edge.
	I do not entirely agree with all my hon. Friend’s comments on what we are doing elsewhere. We are all, sadly, very aware of the ineffectiveness of some of our technology. We know that BCG is not a perfect vaccine, and we are fully aware that the skin test is not a perfect individual animal test, but it is currently the method used in every other country with a major problem of TB in cattle and it does give a broad result, within which other countries have managed to bring this disease down.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind the House that we have a Select Committee report and two Back-Bench debates this afternoon? The convention for statements is that Members ask one question of the Secretary of State—not make statements, but ask one question. We will get everybody in if that convention is followed by Members, so I hope from now on we can move at a slightly faster pace.

Caroline Lucas: I think people around the country will be really shocked by this statement, not just because it represents a complete disregard of the science and the evidence, but because it is also likely to make bovine TB worse, not better. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will bring this issue back to the House so we can have a vote before it goes any further?

Owen Paterson: I am sorry that the hon. Lady reacts in such a way. I would stress very clearly that this strategy has been prepared over recent months, after exhaustive consultation.

Caroline Lucas: indicated dissent.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I am sorry, but I have to repeat this: we have consulted very widely across the country, and a very wide number of senior scientists have been involved, and this is endorsed by our chief veterinary officer. We had a vote back last year which endorsed our strategy with a majority of 61 on a substantive motion. This is a broad strategy that was endorsed then, and we are delivering what we promised to the House then.

Andrew Griffiths: On behalf of farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter who have seen decades of work destroyed by this disease, may I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to tackling and eradicating TB? I have had a number of e-mails from worried constituents recently, who are concerned about the reports in the newspapers of TB spreading to cats and domestic animals. Can the Secretary of State tell us what analysis he has done of that and the risks incurred from it?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. As we have seen graphically from the experience in Newbury, this is a disease that does transfer to other species; it is a zoonosis that can be caught by human beings. The Newbury example, where it looks as if the cats had the same spoligotype as cattle—there is not yet a direct link with badgers but it may be that the badgers in that area also have the same type of TB—is a real wake-up call to us all, as it shows this is a deadly serious
	disease and, as in every other country where they have addressed it, we have to address it not just in cattle but also in wildlife, because we want to have healthy cattle, healthy wildlife and healthy humans.

Andrew Gwynne: In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the Secretary of State said he thought that the independent expert panel’s report contained some “helpful advice”. How does he respond to the panel’s finding that
	“culling badgers over a 6-week period by shooting, or by shooting and cage trapping, fails to meet the criteria of effectiveness set out by Defra”?

Owen Paterson: We agree with the IEP report that there are lessons to be learned. These were pilots, and we are looking to perfect the techniques for removing diseased animals by controlled shooting and by trapping. There is some very helpful advice in the IEP report, which we intend to take on so that the pilots can be proved to be effective, safe and humane and so that we can roll them out to other parts of the country that are desperate to get on top of TB.

David Heath: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to emphasise the comprehensive eradication strategy, of which the removal of infection in the wildlife in a highly infected area is but a part, albeit a vital one. Will he continue to consider alternatives to free shooting, which has been shown to be vulnerable to disruption? Will he also extend the competition to find a successful diagnostic tool to identify infected setts?

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says, just as I endorsed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). It would be a huge help if we could develop a polymerase chain reaction testing system that could instantly diagnose the disease in cattle and in badgers. It would be tremendous if we could run such tests on milk samples daily, for example, rather than having to use the skin tests, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has pointed out, are inadequate and not all that accurate. It would be a huge help if PCR tests could determine which setts had diseased badgers, so that we could focus on them. We are really pressing on with this; it is a top priority for me.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If the Secretary of State is so confident that his strategy will be successful—with respect, he knows that many of us have great doubts about that—why are the Government not paying for it? Why do they expect farmers to contribute towards the £100 million a year costs? The Secretary of State wants the strategy to be successful, and there is more than enough money to pay for it, as well as money for the Treasury to pocket afterwards. Why are farmers being expected to contribute?

Owen Paterson: I am looking at examples from across the world. I was in New Zealand last year, where there is a huge cost to the Government from TB, as there is
	here. Here, we are looking at a bill of £1 billion for the taxpayer. It is clear from examples such as New Zealand that the state working in partnership with farmers has delivered results. It is perfectly obvious that farmers and farmers’ organisations have a huge personal vested interest in getting on top of this disease, and our working with them is the sensible way forward.

Neil Parish: I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to eradicating TB. In Devon, a quarter of the herds are affected by TB, and a third of the badgers are infected with the disease. It has been scientifically proven that half the cases of TB in the endemic areas have been transferred by badgers to cattle. When will more culls take place? Can we put the relevant areas together so that when the lessons have been learned from the two pilot culls, we will be ready to roll out the culls across Devon? Our farmers in Devon are absolutely desperate.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He has been stalwart in defending his constituents and bringing to my personal attention the horrific problem of bovine tuberculosis, particularly in Devon. When I was at the North Devon show, I asked the farming organisations there to start organising. There are 30 areas that have shown an interest in having culls, once we have got the pilots behind us, so my advice to those in Devon is: start organising. Once we have perfected the technique in Somerset and Gloucestershire, I am keen to roll it out because I understand the desperation in areas such as that of my hon. Friend that have such an intensity of disease.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I, too, refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. I commend the Secretary of State’s statement and look forward to his rolling out the exercise across the rest of the United Kingdom, and especially in Northern Ireland. We have seen an increase in bovine TB in my constituency and in County Armagh, which represents a worrying change in the trend. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme involving catching and testing, followed by either culling or injecting, is very expensive? Will he tell us how much money has been set aside for it?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a devolved issue, so it is up to him to discuss elsewhere whether the catch, trap, test and eliminate policy is introduced in Northern Ireland. We are not proposing to do that in England. He makes the valid point, however, that trapping badgers is not easy. We estimate that about a third of badgers are trap-shy, which presents real practical problems for those who are enthusiastic about vaccination.

Jeremy Lefroy: In my area, we also have TB in dairy goats, but the farmers involved are not covered by the compensation scheme. Will the Secretary of State consider changing that rule, because it is causing desperation among those farmers?

Owen Paterson: I was talking to farming representatives who had come over the border into my own patch last Friday, and I am aware that there is a bad case in
	Staffordshire involving goats. We need to look at this issue. We have made it clear that we are going to consult on bringing alpacas into the regime, and we should look at goats as well.

Nia Griffith: We fully agree on the range of measures needed, such as vaccination and pre-movement testing. However, given the failure of the culls to meet effective percentages, even after an extension, and given the risk of perturbation, which has not been addressed today, why will the Secretary of State not transfer the resources that are being wasted on a second round of culling into the vital research that needs to be done on finding the right kinds of testing and vaccination?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady might have misunderstood my earlier comments. The chief veterinary officer is absolutely clear that we have to carry on within the two pilots, because of perturbation. We have absolutely taken that on board. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is happy with our proposals to accelerate our diagnostic work, the work on DNA that we have talked about and the improvements to vaccinations, but she has to respect the fact that every other country that has a reservoir of TB in its wildlife has removed the diseased wildlife. She might regret that, but it is a fundamental part of those other countries’ success.

Annette Brooke: Will the Secretary of State and his Department be working in the immediate future with voluntary organisations such as the Dorset Wildlife Trust and the Dorset Badger Vaccination Project, to ensure that we do something about this now?

Owen Paterson: That is a helpful question. We are making major changes to create a buffer zone, injecting, we hope, healthy badgers. We will need volunteers, and I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend might have contacts in her constituency who would like to help us in the buffer zone. Sadly, however, I have to remind her that in the core zone, where there is intensity of disease, vaccination will not work. It is in the buffer zone that we will really need help.

Diana Johnson: What does the Secretary of State expect the policing costs of rolling out the culls to be?

Owen Paterson: That rather depends on what the protesters do. If the countryside were inhabited only by responsible country people, who are very concerned about TB, the policing costs would be very low. I totally respect democracy. We all have different views, and I totally respect people’s right to protest, but if we have an invasion of protesters who try to stop the democratic Government’s disease control policy by using measures that cross the border from legitimate democratic protest into active disruption, the policing costs will become significant.

Matthew Offord: When did the Secretary of State last discuss the timetable for establishing a legal, validated cattle vaccine with the European Commission?

Owen Paterson: I saw the commissioner on the Monday a fortnight ago—the first day I came back.

Paul Flynn: The lesson is clear: without culling, Wales has reduced the number of bovine TB cases by 50%. It has done that not just by vaccination but by other methods. The Secretary of State’s experiment has failed in many, many respects: in its duration; in the number of animals killed; and, especially, in the suffering caused, as up to a quarter of the badgers took five minutes to die. Does he think that this example of gratuitous cruelty is likely to increase or decrease the number of protestors against this continuing tomfoolery?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he must look at the longer term in Wales. According to my sources in Wales, there was a spike because annual testing was introduced, and that accounts for the reduction. It is simply not possible to attribute this dramatic reduction, which is very welcome, to the 1.5% of Wales that has had a badger vaccination trial for two years. On humaneness, I repeat that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly. The panel report contains clear recommendations on how we can improve our techniques. Seven badgers are completely unaccounted for—they may have been missed entirely. The panel decided to put them in the category of having taken more than five minutes to die, but if they were missed entirely—they may be out there now, hale and healthy—the figure comes down dramatically, and 95% of the badgers would have died within the five-minute limit.

Simon Hart: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that vaccination is the solution in Wales, given that the reduction in TB is the same outside the vaccination area as it is inside that area? Furthermore, it is a bit rich for opponents of the cull to condemn a method of controlling badgers that they promote for the control of foxes.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend makes two very pertinent comments. We wish the regime in Wales well, but it simply is not credible to attribute this reduction to the brief period of vaccination in 1.5% of the land area.

Adrian Sanders: The IEP report said that the cull trial was ineffective, that it did not reach its target and that it was inhumane. What would the Secretary of State’s definition of failure be?

Owen Paterson: That is a pessimistic interpretation of the IEP report. We are perfectly aware of the difficulty of achieving the numbers in the cull last year, but it was the first year. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that in the RBCT three areas achieved figures of 32%, 37% and 39%. They also got off to a slow start, but in later years they contributed to disease reduction. He wants a definition of success—it is reducing TB, and getting healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

Mel Stride: On behalf of my local farmers in Devon, may I commend my right hon. Friend for pressing on with what is right? It is right for our farmers, for rural communities, for the taxpayer and for cattle, and although this is often overlooked, it is also distinctly right for those badgers that will otherwise die a long and lingering death from this dreadful disease. Will he confirm that there is not a single country in the world where TB has been effectively addressed in cattle without it first being addressed in the wildlife population?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He rightly draws attention to foreign comparisons, and the most obvious is the Republic of Ireland. In 1999, 44,903 cattle were culled there, but by following the same techniques that we have—strict cattle movement controls, slaughter of reactors, and by removing diseased badgers—the number decreased last year to 15,612. That is a dramatic reduction of two thirds, and I am happy to report that scientists tell me that the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier than before the cull, because the badgers are healthier and they are eating better.

Mark Harper: As my constituency contains one of the cull pilot areas, I know how difficult this process has been. May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the thoughtful way in which he has presented his statement about the comprehensive strategy, which will be welcomed by my local farmers? May I ask him to repeat for the benefit of my constituents who are perhaps not as supportive of the cull the important comments he made about accepting the IEP’s recommendations to deal with the concerns that people might have about the humaneness of the pilot cull as it is rolled out further in Gloucestershire?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s broad support for the policy and for sticking up for his constituents. We are absolutely clear that the panel report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly, but a number did not. The report makes some clear, practical recommendations on how we can improve humaneness. We emphatically want to do that, which is why we are not rolling things out further for the moment. We are holding to the existing two pilots to see whether we can perfect the techniques to make sure that they are humane, effective and safe.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for his determination to tackle bovine TB and, in particular, to stop its movement and create buffer zones. The shadow Minister spoke of inept handling, but when Labour was in power it was well known that bovine TB was moving towards Cheshire at a rate of 4 miles a year—tragically, it arrived. Does the Secretary of State agree that the inept handling of the former Labour Government in not tackling that movement put so many Cheshire farmers in the distressed position they are in today?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the 13 wasted years during which let this disease rip. Her local farmers are very close to mine, and they are getting desperate, as this disease costs such a lot. It is not just about the cattle; we must consider the human cost of farmers being devastated and of lifetimes’ of work being destroyed, while they know perfectly well
	that in Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, where the disease is addressed in cattle and in wildlife, the disease can be got rid of.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Secretary of State’s innovative idea of the vaccination buffer zones. How wide are they? How many cattle were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB last year? What is the total number of badgers killed in the pilot culls?

Owen Paterson: The idea is to establish a buffer zone on the edge, and I am delighted by the positive response from Members in the House. We will look to consult on how we bring in various groups. I am delighted that there might be volunteers, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned. The extent of this will be the number of people we can actually get involved. The number of cattle slaughtered in Britain last year was 32,620 perfectly healthy cattle, which is more than 90 a day. The numbers for badgers killed in the culls was 955 in west Somerset and 924 in Gloucestershire.

Andrew George: I wish to challenge my right hon. Friend’s assertion in his statement that there is no point in undertaking any vaccination in the hot-spot areas, not least because the Department’s own trial in Stroud, a hot-spot area, has demonstrated significant improvement. In addition, we have a significant programme ready to roll with the Zoological Society of London in the Penwith area of my constituency. Will he and his scientists meet me and my scientists so that we can explore this issue?

Owen Paterson: I am perfectly happy for my experts to meet my hon. Friend’s, but the categorical advice I am getting is that, sadly, once a badger is infected with bovine TB, the current injectable vaccination does not make them healthy. The vaccine is difficult to deliver—as I have said, a third of badgers are trap-shy. So even if we catch the remaining two thirds and inject them with a vaccine, they will not become healthy, and that is sad.

Neil Carmichael: I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on improving the system of diagnosis for this disease, because that is how we can effectively bring together the three components—vaccination, cattle movement restriction and culling—so that they can work. Does he agree?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for sticking up for his constituents. I have been there and seen the real problems we have in Gloucestershire. He rightly identifies the fact that the strategy encompasses a range of activities—there is no one golden key to this. The lesson is that we must use all the tools. If we decide arbitrarily on misguided grounds to miss out one tool, which has been used in other countries, we will not succeed. We must use all the tools as outlined in the strategy.

Points of Order

Angela Watkinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the earlier ministerial statement on standardised packaging of tobacco products, I omitted to draw to the attention of the House my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do so now.

Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Lady for adding that to the record.

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Government chief scientist, Sir Mark Walport, spoke to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in which he referred to the principles of scientific advice to Government, which applies to Ministers and Government Departments, all members of scientific advisory committees and councils and so on. The advice specifically says:
	“Scientific advice to Government should be made publicly available unless there are overriding reasons, such as national security or the facilitation of a crime, for not doing so.”
	In light of the earlier comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you use your good offices to bring this to the attention of the Treasury Benches?

Dawn Primarolo: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been very effective himself in drawing the matter to the notice of the Treasury Benches? It is not a point of order for the Chair, but possibly a matter for a fascinating discussion on the Floor of the House on how to implement the advice, which is also not in the gift of the Chair. We should therefore now move on.

Housing Costs

Dawn Primarolo: We now come to the Select Committee statement. Dame Anne Begg will speak to her subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and then call Dame Anne Begg to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. I remind them that interventions should be questions and should be brief. Members on the Front Bench may take part in the questioning if they wish.

Anne Begg: (Select Committee Statement): Yesterday, the Work and Pensions Committee published our report on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system. Our inquiry explored recent reforms to housing support, including the effects of the individual household benefit cap, the changes to council tax relief, the effects on supported accommodation and reforms to local housing allowance, which is housing benefit for those who are renting in the private sector. We considered the changes that might need to come into force once universal credit is rolled out. Not least, we also looked at the operation of what we call the social sector size criteria, the Government call the spare room subsidy or the under-occupancy penalty, and everyone else calls the bedroom tax.
	It is timely that we are launching this report now. It is one year since the bedroom tax was implemented and since the benefit cap began to be rolled out. The Government have reformed the housing costs support system with the aim of reducing benefit expenditure and incentivising people to enter work. We concluded that some vulnerable people, who were not the intended targets of the reforms and who are not able to respond by moving house or finding a job, are suffering as a result of these reforms, which are causing them financial hardship.
	The Government’s aims in introducing the bedroom tax were to tackle overcrowding in the social housing sector and to reduce housing benefit expenditure. However, we believe that it has so far been a blunt instrument for achieving that. That is due at least in part to the fact that there are not enough smaller social housing units in the areas where benefit claimants are deemed to be over-occupying. The Government should carry out a detailed assessment of the available social housing stock in each local authority area. If the evidence shows that there are insufficient smaller homes for people to move to, the Government should give people more time to find ways to adjust to the bedroom tax before it is imposed. In areas where the household is under-occupying but there is no suitable, reasonable alternative housing available—we found that some people wanted to move but simply could not—we believe the bedroom tax should not be applied.
	The bedroom tax is having a particularly adverse impact on disabled people. We highlighted that between 60% and 70% of the affected households in England contain somebody with a disability, and many of those people will not be able to move home easily due to their disability. They therefore must remain in their home,
	with no option but to face a reduction in their housing benefit. Many disabled people cannot move because they live in homes that have been specially adapted to help them to cope with their disabilities. Even if they could find another accessible home, which is highly unlikely, there would be additional costs for the local council in adapting the new home before they can move into it.
	Many people with disabilities also have legitimate reasons for requiring what is inaccurately deemed to be a spare room. It might be needed to accommodate a carer or medical equipment, or because they cannot share a room with their partner because of their condition. We recommend that disabled people living in a home that has been significantly adapted for them should be exempt. We also urge the Government to go further and exempt all households that contain a person in receipt of higher rate disability living allowance or the equivalent in personal independence payment.
	There is also evidence that, rather than saving public money, which was one of its key aims, the so-called bedroom tax is often just shifting costs to local authorities and housing providers. We therefore call on the Government to carry out a full cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy by this time next year, so that the overall impact of the policy on the public purse can be properly evaluated.
	We found that the benefit cap was having a particularly adverse impact on two groups of claimants: carers and people in temporary accommodation. People on disability benefits are excluded from the cap but not people who claim carer’s allowance. Even some carers who live in the same household as the disabled person are not exempt from the cap; that is because, if the disabled person they care for is a parent or adult child, the carer is not considered to be part of the same benefit unit. We recommend that the Government should exempt all recipients of carer’s allowance in that situation from the benefit cap.
	Local authorities often have no option but to place homeless households in temporary accommodation, which is usually more expensive than permanent accommodation. Those claimants can then fall within the scope of the individual household benefit cap, even though homeless people have no choice in where they are housed and few options for reducing their housing costs. It seems particularly unjust, therefore, for them to be affected by the individual household benefit cap. As local authorities often have to pay the shortfall between rent levels and housing benefit for those affected by the cap, no overall saving is made. Again, we have also recommended that the Government exempt all households in temporary accommodation from the household benefit cap.
	One area in which we had some success is supported accommodation, which is used to house vulnerable people, particularly homeless people and women fleeing domestic violence. Exemptions from the benefit cap apply to claimants who live in exempt supported accommodation. However, we received evidence that only some supported accommodation was exempt from the cap, because of the way it is defined. Two claimants housed in supported accommodation units that appeared to be identical might find that one was subject to the
	cap and the other was exempt. I raised that anomaly with the Prime Minister in a Liaison Committee evidence session in January. Lord Freud, the Minister for Welfare Reform, told us in evidence in February that amending regulations would be laid to remove the anomaly. We very much welcome the fact that those regulations were laid last week. We also welcome the Minister’s confirmation that “virtually all” supported accommodation will be exempted from the cap when they are implemented.
	The Government believe that the best way to help people facing hardship as a result of the reforms is through the discretionary housing payments system. We recognise that the Government have provided extra funding for this transitional protection, but those payments are intended to be “transitional”, being allocated inconsistently and only for a short time. Whether or not a claimant is awarded DHP is heavily dependent on where they live, because different local authorities apply different eligibility rules. Access to DHPs should depend on need and not on somebody’s postcode.
	DHPs are also intended to offer a temporary, not a permanent, solution to people being unable to meet the full costs of their rent from their housing benefit, but many people are likely to need long-term help because they cannot move house to avoid paying the so-called bedroom tax and because they are often unable to find a job or to work extra hours to make up the shortfall. We believe that the Government should make it much clearer to local authorities that they can make long-term DHP awards, so that claimants who are disabled or vulnerable in other ways do not have to worry about the uncertainty of having to make a repeat claim every three or six months.
	Some local authorities take disability benefits into account in the means test they apply for DHP, so some disabled people do not qualify for such help. However, disability benefits are intended to cover the extra costs that people incur because they are disabled or long-term sick; they are not disposable income. It is not appropriate for them to be included in the means test for DHPs and we believe that the Government should issue clear guidance to local authorities that disability benefits should be disregarded in any means test for DHPs.
	Finally, we considered the local housing allowance. Private sector rents are becoming increasingly less affordable for housing benefit claimants because of the growing discrepancy between average rents and the amount of local housing allowance that households can claim. As a result, private sector landlords are increasingly reluctant to rent to LHA recipients, evictions and non-renewals of tenancies are increasing, and the properties that remain available to claimants are increasingly of poor quality. The Government’s figures show that homelessness acceptances are down overall, but increases are occurring in high-demand areas, and homelessness among people who are classified as “not in priority need” increased by 9% between 2012 and 2013. We believe that the Government need to monitor the impact of the local housing allowance reforms carefully and look at further ways of supporting claimants if the reforms are found to be exacerbating homelessness.
	I commend our report to the House.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Lady concede that of the 60% to 70% of claimants referred to in her statement as claiming
	to be disabled, only 27% are in receipt of disability living allowance and only 18% are in receipt of the higher rate? It is those people with the highest need who are most likely to have adapted homes and it is that group of people for whom discretionary housing payments are intended. In the current financial year, £165 million has been made available to support them.

Anne Begg: Indeed. That is why the Committee did not go so far as to say that all people with a disability should be exempt and suggested that perhaps a proxy, such as those in the higher rate DLA category, might be acceptable. We are very clear that we think that the groups that the hon. Lady mentions should be exempt. I know that many Government Back Benchers often think that those people are exempt, but they are not, for the reasons I gave in my statement. We think that it should be very clear that someone in an adapted house, for instance, should not have even to apply for DHP. Surely they should be automatically exempt.

Ian Lavery: I welcome the report, which clearly identifies a hardship faced by many disabled people and their carers. Is my hon. Friend confident that the Government will exempt the individuals whose circumstances are outlined in the report from the bedroom tax?

Anne Begg: I would hope so, simply because I know that Ministers have often repeated that the groups we describe really should not be subject to the spare room subsidy, or the bedroom tax, as everybody else calls it. I keep forgetting what we call it—that is it: the social sector size criteria. Ministers have often said that those people are exempt, but of course they are not. They are only generally not asked to pay because they qualify for DHP. As I pointed out, in the council areas where disability living allowance is counted as income in the means test, the very people that everybody in this House would hope are exempt from the policy are not exempt.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the hon. Lady and her Committee for the report. Recommendation 18, which is highlighted in more detail on page 43 and is about discretionary housing payments and people in receipt of disability benefits, is perhaps one of the most powerful recommendations in her report. As the excellent Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who is very sensitive to these important issues, is on the Front Bench today, may I reinforce her extremely powerful recommendation that the Government should issue revised guidance to local authorities to clear up the point about whether disability benefits should or should not be included in means-testing for eligibility for DHP awards? Clearly, local authorities are not doing the same thing and it is important to get standard practice across the country where possible. These issues are difficult enough, but they are magnified for those who are disabled.

Anne Begg: The whole thrust of our report was to emphasise that we think people have ended up being affected by the policy who were never its intended targets. That is the hon. Gentleman’s point and I hope that the Minister is listening.

Eilidh Whiteford: I, too, commend the hon. Lady and the Committee for this valuable report. Does she agree that the cross-party efforts to mitigate fully the impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland would be greatly aided if the UK Government were to allow the Scottish Government to raise the threshold for discretionary housing payments? Can she suggest how Government intransigence on this issue might be tackled?

Anne Begg: We mentioned that in the report, because obviously the situation is different in Scotland and needs a solution there. Anything that will help to ensure that the Scottish Government are in a position to implement their policies is welcome, but I also know that there are discussions going on in Scotland about how else the situation can be mitigated for the people who live there.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I was just reflecting, in the context of the report, on the question of the evidence we have, if we have any, about people who suffer from disabilities and live in crowded accommodation who now have the opportunity to move to less crowded accommodation as a consequence of the Government’s policy. Would the hon. Lady like to comment on that?

Anne Begg: Part of the problem, as we mention in the report, is that there are not enough houses for the people in houses that are deemed to be under-occupied to move into to release the larger houses, which is the Government’s policy intention. Unfortunately, the report was already agreed and printed by the time the BBC published the results of its investigation last week into the number of people who had moved, which discovered that the figure was only 6%. Although the intention of the policy was to free up larger houses, it seems that that has not really happened simply because there are not the smaller houses for people to move to. We found evidence that people who were desperate to move could not do so because there was no house for them, and they had no option but to absorb the extra costs. They were having to find what would have been paid in housing benefit from a very limited budget.

Katy Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on this excellent report. Of course, there are recommendations about benefit sanctions and we are about to have a detailed debate on that issue. In my constituency, benefit sanctions have more than doubled, increasing by 123%, and we understand that one in five of the people being sanctioned has a disability. Did the Committee hear evidence on that or does it have a view about the types of groups that are being affected by that policy?

Anne Begg: Not specifically, because a lot of that will have been covered elsewhere, although there is some confusion about people who might be sanctioned in one part of the benefits system whose housing benefit should not be affected but sometimes is. However, we did not consider that specific issue in this report.

Nigel Mills: I am sure that the Chair of the Committee would agree that the topic was not the easiest one for the Committee to reach agreement on, as the record shows. Does she agree that one issue is
	that the reforms are still in their early days and it is hard to find the data to work out whether they are being as successful as we would perhaps all like? Further efforts are needed from local authorities, local housing associations and others to ensure we are making the best and most efficient use of the housing stock we have.

Anne Begg: That is why we say in more than one of our recommendations that the Government need to encourage local authorities to collect data on how their housing stock is being used. We call for an analysis across councils of the availability of houses for people affected by the policy to move into.

Julie Hilling: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Lady and her Committee on this report. Did the Committee consider the definition of under-occupancy—for example, the expectation that a toddler should share with a teenager or the size of a box room that would be adequate to house two grown children?

Anne Begg: We did look at that. We suggested that the use of the term “bedroom” was misleading and that the Government should use the term “bed space” instead, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend mentions. Two older children may be expected to share a room that has been deemed to be a bedroom, but the room may be so small that only a cot would fit in it. That is also relevant to whether disabled people are properly housed and whether they are deemed to have a spare bedroom. The Government need to be much clearer in their definition of what is acceptable, the size of room that is acceptable and the area that two beds take up in determining whether there is under-occupancy.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you for that report.

BILL PRESENTED

football governance (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
	Damian Collins, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Tracey Crouch, Mr Jim Cunningham, Philip Davies, Paul Farrelly, Penny Mordaunt, Steve Rotheram, Mr Adrian Sanders, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Justin Tomlinson and Mr John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to require professional and semi-professional football clubs in England to disclose the identity of their owners; to give the Football Association powers to block the ownership of a club by anyone whom they consider is not a fit and proper person; to require all creditors of a football club to be compensated equally should the club go into administration; to facilitate the raising by supporters’ organisations of the finance required to acquire a controlling stake in a football club; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 198).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

[Relevant documents: Second report from the Work and Pensions Committee, The role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system, HC479, and the Government response, HC 1210.]

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and call on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The process of sanctioning benefit recipients is now being used on an enormous scale—almost 1 million sanctions a year. Even the right-wing Policy Exchange think-tank acknowledged in a report published last month that about 68,000 benefit claimants each year are having their welfare payments stopped unfairly. Given that the penalty for the first infringement is the loss of benefit for four weeks, for the second the loss of benefits for three months and for the third the loss of benefits for three years, the number of people being driven into destitution by administrative diktat is enormous. Even the Policy Exchange admits that 8% of that number should never have been sanctioned.
	I presume that everyone accepts that fall-back sanctions have to be applied in extreme cases where there is deliberate and real non co-operation with the obligation to try to find work and where no good reasons have been found for such behaviour. Those sanctions should be proportionate and reasonable and not exercised punitively or with a view to achieving targets or objectives—whatever we call them—for removing people from the unemployment list.
	From the evidence that I have collected from my constituency surgery, Citizens Advice, YMCA, the excellent Work and Pensions Committee report on this issue and the Library, it is abundantly clear that the standards that the DWP likes to claim always apply in sanctioning cases far too often certainly do not. I wish to cite a number of cases drawn directly from those sources.
	A security guard at a jobcentre turned away a man with learning disabilities who had arrived 20 minutes early to sign on. The man then returned two minutes late to sign on and had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks.
	A man was sanctioned for four weeks because he had not known about an appointment as the letter had been sent to an address that he had left a year ago, even though Jobcentre Plus was aware of his current address.
	A woman claiming employment and support allowance had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and had given the back-to-work scheme provider a list of her hospital appointments. She was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment on the middle day of her three-day hospital stay. The woman had two daughters but her ESA was reduced to £28 a week. She asked for reconsideration, but had heard nothing five weeks later.
	A woman was sanctioned for failing to attend provider-led training when the receptionist had rung to tell her not to come in because the trainer was ill. She was subsequently told that she should have attended to sign the attendance register.
	A woman whose ESA was sanctioned had her benefit reduced from £195 to less than £50 per fortnight because she missed a back-to-work scheme appointment owing to illness. Her sister had rung two days beforehand to say that she could not attend and arranged another date, when she did attend.
	An epileptic man had his JSA sanctioned for four weeks because he did not attend a back-to-work scheme meeting as his two-year old daughter was taken ill and he was her sole carer that day. He rang the provider in advance, but was told this would still have to be noted as “did not attend”. During the four-week sanction he suffered hunger, hardship, stress and an increase in epileptic attacks, but he was not told about hardship payments or food banks or how to appeal the sanction decision.
	Lastly, a man in Yorkshire and Humber was sanctioned for allegedly failing to attend back-to-work scheme events. He had in fact attended, and the provider had no record of any failures. His hardship request was not processed, his housing benefit was stopped, and he fell into rent arrears and had no money for food, gas or electricity.
	These are not isolated or exceptional cases.

Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Michael Meacher: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect his concern about these matters, but I will not give way again because we are short of time, with the Government having put on two statements before this debate.

Peter Bottomley: Is there any rational reason why in any of those cases the Jobcentre or others should not have reversed the decision if it was clear that the wrong decision had been taken? Why is it necessary to go through a full appeals system when clearly human inspection can say this is wrong?

Michael Meacher: I very much agree with that. Jobcentres Plus have the right to “reconsider”, which is a euphemistic term, and they sometimes do, but I agree that appeals often take three or more months, and are extremely bureaucratic, long-winded and difficult. Far more effort should be put in before the decision is taken to sanction, so that we get sensible decisions and long appeal procedures are not required.
	Before I turn to what should be done to change policies and procedures that are patently not working properly, I want to make two wider points. First, everyone who can do so should seek work. The overwhelming majority of the jobless are desperate to find work. However, when 2.4 million people are on the dole queues today and there are only 558,000 vacancies, three out of every four simply cannot find a job whatever they do. A report in the Financial Times this week says that there are 3 million under-employed people who would be keen to work full time if only the jobs were available. The real problem in Britain today is not
	people failing to try to get work, but the Chancellor’s obsessional austerity policies that contract the economy and fail to provide the job opportunities that people are desperately looking for.
	I do not object to the use of sanctions in the tiny number of cases in which they might be needed as long as they are proportionate and reasonable. However, I do object to the hounding of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, often for trivial, ill-considered or utterly unjustified reasons, and driving them into destitution when those who caused the financial crash and the longest recession in this country for 140 years get no sanction at all. It is a classic case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
	What should be done? Plenty. Sanctioning is being used on far too large a scale. The practice is not only unduly harsh and, obviously, causes severe hardship, but is often counter-productive. The YMCA cites three people’s comments about its effects. One says:
	“I was unable to look for work as much as I could before”.
	Another says:
	“It stopped me from searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers”.
	A third person says:
	“My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment”.
	Citizens Advice makes the crucial observation—I think this was the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) was making—that front-line advisers do not have sufficient time to get to know a claimant and understand their needs. That explains why there are so many reports of cases such as that of a person with no computer skills being required to apply for work online, a person with no driving licence who is required to apply for a job for which driving is essential, and a wheelchair user who is required to apply for a job that is physically demanding.
	Benefit off-flow—a horrible bureaucratic phrase that treats human beings like counters—is, perversely, the key performance measure used by Jobcentre Plus. Disallowances—that is the euphemism used by the Department for Work and Pensions—are included in the off-flow data for people coming off the unemployment list, so staff have an in-built incentive to use them to achieve what they perceive their management expect of them.
	Much more could be done to prevent situations that cause sanctioning from arising in the first place because it is clear that in a great many cases people simply do not understand what is required of them. Regrettably, there is a toxic yet pervasive culture in Jobcentre Plus of “Sanction first; think later”, as is shown by the shockingly large number of sanctions against young people—there were 39,000 last year—that are subsequently overturned or, to use that wonderfully euphemistic word, “reconsidered”. Serious, thoughtful effort is needed to do everything possible to secure compliance, with which we all agree, without a sanction being necessary. There should be more common-sense discretion and much less of a rush to action: action should be taken only as a last resort.
	Much more attention should be paid to the impact of sanctioning on claimants. An Oxfam report published last May estimated that 500,000 people were reliant on food aid—I suspect that that figure has now nearly doubled—and that more than half of people who turned
	to food banks did so a direct result of having their benefit payments delayed, reduced or withdrawn altogether. In 21st century Britain, can forcing hundreds of thousands of people onto food aid, which is usually associated with third-world countries, conceivably be justified when the root cause of the problem is the Chancellor’s failure to grow the economy and create jobs because of his obsession with prolonged austerity? I think not, which is why I submit to the House that there is an urgent need, as my motion demands,
	“to review the targeting, severity and impact”
	of sanctioning as it is currently applied.

John Hemming: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has managed to secure the debate, although sadly it was scheduled at short notice, so I do not think that all hon. Members who might wish to be present are in the Chamber.
	I support the Government’s general financial strategy, so I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about austerity. Clearly we have to bring the deficit under control, so we have to be aware of the costs of the welfare system. I support a number of the changes to the system that the Government have introduced, but some have caused complications. I am worried about the impact of the changes to council tax benefit, which need to be reviewed because they have created odd results. My Labour opponent has taken to encouraging people to move from West Bromwich to Birmingham because that allows them to get more benefits from the council tax payer. I think that that is wrong, because it puts pressure on our local taxpayers, but it arises because Sandwell, which is where West Bromwich is, has a different rule from Birmingham on qualifying for council tax benefit.
	Like all hon. Members, I have an office that deals with casework, and we learn a lot from the people who come to see us. I worry, however, that people who are sanctioned do not come to see me because only four sanctions cases have come through. We are a reference agency for the local food bank. We have made four references to it, although, oddly enough, they did not involve the people who were sanctioned, because we have generally found that we can deal with such cases. I worry about what is happening that we do not see because, although we can read the statistics, we do not see the people affected, and I like to understand individual cases so that I can find out what is going on. I have been involved in welfare rights casework for coming up to 25 years, so I have seen the system’s various changes and got used to concepts such as non-dependent deductions. Those things are complicated and difficult for people to understand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) would love to be able to participate in the debate, but she has to be at another meeting, so she has asked me to quote her comments about a case from her constituency. She says:
	“I have had many constituents who have been sanctioned completely inappropriately over the last 18 months. In all cases the removal of benefits has caused intense distress and suffering
	to people who are very vulnerable. This is a typical case—I shall call her Jenny. Jenny has profound mental health problems, learning difficulties and physical health problems. Her health problems and disabilities make it very difficult for her to organise herself and her own life. This is the reason that she finds it so difficult to hold down a job and the reason why she is on benefits. Jenny needs a great deal of support to function. Instead of which, when she missed appointments, her benefits were sanctioned, leaving her without any money whatsoever for more than 4 months. During this period Jenny was destitute and reliant on the food bank. The safety net of the welfare state that should support a woman who is too vulnerable to support herself entirely let her down.”
	Those comments highlight the sort of cases that we should be especially worried about: those involving people who get confused by everything and are not quite sure what is going on, and all they find is that they do not have any money. Such people have visited my advice bureau. They know that they do not have any money but they do not know why. However, we have been able to deal with such situations.
	Although the Opposition might think that the Government are out to get people, I do not think that that is true. The Government are trying to encourage people into work and to give support to those who need it, but we need to consider how we can review the sanctions process so that we do not trap people in destitution. If someone has no money, it is difficult to get a bus fare. A day’s bus fare in Birmingham is £3.60, which does not sound much to someone in work who is earning a lot of money, but it creates a bit of problem for someone who is on £71.70 a week and suddenly finds that they have no money at all.
	That has a knock-on effect for housing benefit. We have marvellous computer systems that minimise the amount of paperwork that people need to do because benefits can be passported. If somebody gets JSA or some form of means-tested benefit, they automatically qualify for housing benefit as well. The problem is that when they come off JSA because they are sanctioned, the computer says no and suddenly they are taken off housing benefit as well. In fact, because they have got money, they qualify for housing benefit, but they have to put in another claim. This is the problem for people who have difficulty understanding how the system works. They know they have no money, but they do not understand why the council is asking them to pay rent. The danger with that is that they come for advice too late, and we end up trying to backdate housing benefit some months in a situation where people always qualified for it but had not claimed it.
	The Government say that targets for sanctioning have been stopped, but there needs to be a review of how some of the agencies are operating. They seem to be referring too many people for sanctions, which creates problems. Then there is the question of delays on appeals. Obviously, a reconsideration is far better than an appeal, and there are mechanisms for that. We need to make sure that the advice agencies such as Citizens Advice get good co-operation from agencies such as Jobcentre Plus so that the process does not end up being over-bureaucratic.
	I happened to ask a question about cases on appeal being stayed, because I discovered that the Department has had a tendency to stay cases. A thousand cases were stayed for more then six months. If there is a massive commercial dispute between two wealthy companies about an issue of copyright or patent, the fact that the
	court has not yet made up its mind does not affect either of them, but if somebody is destitute and depends on a food bank, it is a big issue if their case is stayed.
	The Department needs to look at the cost-effectiveness of fighting some of these cases, and consider whether it might be better to cave in if a reasonable case is being made by the appellant. The amount of money being provided is not that great and the administrative cost of dealing with the case is quite high. One of the reasons that the Department does not turn up at tribunals from time to time is the administrative cost of doing that. I understand that the Department cannot give in all the time—there is no question about that—but there needs to be a cost-effectiveness calculation of fighting claims too hard, accepting that at the other end is not a large company that can wait, but somebody who is destitute and desperate for cash. Even though they may have family support and the like, I see people with very serious problems.
	A further question that should be considered is whether the sanctioning system is designed the wrong way. I agree with the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—we need a system to support compliance—but we should look at the way the universal credit sanctioning system has been designed, rather than the way the JSA sanctioning scheme works. The JSA sanctioning scheme is to a great extent punitive. It gives people a kick for doing something that the system deems to be wrong, whereas the universal credit system is designed to enforce compliance, so as soon as compliance starts, money starts again. That is what the system should be doing. We are waiting for the rest of universal credit and want to see that as soon as possible, but if the Government could bring in at an earlier stage the universal credit sanctioning system, we would have a system that is seen to be doing what it says on the tin and encouraging people to work with the system.
	If, under that system, the easiest way of getting paid is for people to do what they are asked to do, rather than to fight it through an appeal process that can potentially take years to be settled, there would be a far better result for people. These are people without any other source of revenue, apart perhaps from support from families. Some people do not even have family support. We need to think about how the system is seen from those people’s point of view.
	I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton on asking for this debate, and on his persistence and his willingness to stand in at the last minute. Many hon. Members are concerned about the issue as they see it in their constituency surgeries, and the Government need to review some aspects of the process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: May I suggest that Members take up to 10 minutes, because of the number of speakers in the next debate as well?

Anne Begg: This is obviously a day for my Select Committee’s reports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) referred to the report that we
	published a few months ago called “The role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system”, in which we had a whole section on sanctions. Very helpfully, the Government published their response to that report today, so the debate is timely.
	Sanctions as we know them today have probably existed from the 1980s, although there has always been conditionality as part of the rules for getting unemployment allowance. I suppose the question today is to what extent the use of sanctions has increased in recent years. Certainly there has been a huge increase since the Welfare Reform Act 2012 was passed. Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow, the leading academic authority on benefit sanctions, told my Committee that
	“the severity of the regime has increased drastically under the Coalition Government and is increasing further.”
	He also highlighted the common misconception that benefit sanctions affect only a small minority of benefit claimants. In the period 2008 to 2012 around one fifth of JSA claimants were sanctioned, approximately 1.4 million people. Official data show that, since the introduction of the new rules which have already been referred to, the proportion of JSA claimants sanctioned every month is around 5%, which is approximately 60,000 people. In the period from the introduction of the new JSA rules to June 2013 there were 553,000 sanctions, an increase of 11% on the same period a year earlier. There were 860,000 JSA sanctions in the year to June 2013, the highest number in any 12-month period since records began in their current form, and probably the highest number ever. The number of employment and support allowance sanctions—it is a new development that people on a disability benefit can be sanctioned—in the period December 2012 to June 2013 was double that in the same period a year earlier.
	Despite all this, by May 2013 the report to the Secretary of State found
	“no evidence of a secret national regime”
	to set targets for the number of sanctions imposed. However, the Public and Commercial Services Union told my Committee that the expectations placed on Jobcentre Plus staff to sanction claimants were “targets by another name”. The argument about whether such targets exist continues to this day.
	Both Members who have already spoken talked about inappropriate sanction referrals. We received evidence of quite a number of those, but in the light of Mr Deputy Speaker’s strictures, I will not detail them. Suffice to say that many were silly and inappropriate. With the application of common sense—that was the phrase that we used in our report—they could have been avoided or should have been picked up at review stage. About 50% of sanctions are overturned on review by a decision maker.
	Many hon. Members will have received postcards from constituents that were probably sent to them by Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, which asked my Select Committee to hold an inquiry into the use of food banks. Those postcards arrived in my office when we had already embarked on our inquiry into Jobcentre Plus. We had already decided that that would form part of the inquiry. Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, in their report, “Walking the breadline”, found that sanctions were a significant factor in the recent substantial rise in referrals to food banks. They estimated that some
	half a million people in the UK were “reliant on food aid”, and that “up to half” of people who are referred to food banks need help
	“as a direct result of having benefit payments delayed, reduced, or withdrawn”.
	DWP was unable to provide information on the number or proportion of JSA claimants who chose to sign off benefit during a sanction period, or for longer, which is the reason that they would come off the claimant count. That might explain why there is some disparity between the number of people looking for work and the official unemployment targets.
	The Committee recommended that Jobcentre Plus should look at the impact of sanctions on the use of food banks, but the Government have effectively rejected that in their response.
	The Committee was also keen to see a second independent review of the sanctions regime, in addition to the one already being conducted by Matthew Oakley. Indeed, we thought that we had got the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), to agree to that when she gave oral evidence. Matthew Oakley is considering the clarity of DWP’s communications with claimants, the whole issue of sanctions, the appeals process and the availability of hardship payments.
	We had wanted that second independent review to examine: whether sanction referrals were made appropriately, proportionately and fairly across the jobcentre network; whether there is a the link between sanctioning and the claimant count that could explain some of the disparities in the figures; and whether the regime was achieving its aim of encouraging claimants to engage more effectively with employment support. There is no point having sanctions if we do not know whether they work. Are they making people look for work more thoroughly than they otherwise would? That is our question. We do not think that Matthew Oakley’s inquiry will answer that, because it is not in its remit.
	The Committee thought that the Employment Minister had promised that second review, which is why our report states that we welcome that commitment. Unfortunately, that is not what she meant, because the Government’s response states that there will be no second review along the lines we were asking for, and which we thought the Government had agreed to.
	I appeal again to the Government to consider setting up a second independent review, and not just of the administration of sanctions, but of their effectiveness. Do they actually work? Do they change the behaviour of the people affected? If they are not changing people’s behaviour and so are purely punitive, the Government should be honest about that, because they must be saving money as a result. I do not think that most people would accept the application of sanctions that are purely punitive. If they are changing people’s behaviour, that is a different matter.

Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement about the Government’s about-turn, given that the Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton
	and referred to the second review’s terms of reference? It is therefore very surprising now to be told that it will not happen at all.

Anne Begg: I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment, because we honestly thought, even before we published the report, that we had got the Minister to agree to such a review. I hope that the Government will think again, because they need to be satisfied, just as everybody else does, that the regime is not intended simply to save money in the welfare system through punitive sanctions, but has a real purpose in ensuring that people who are not fulfilling their obligations under the agreements they signed and who are trying to play the system should be sanctioned in certain circumstances. Sanctions should certainly not be applied if there is no reason other than to punish the individuals concerned.
	I know that my time is up, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister, who is listening patiently, will take that back to the Department and that we can get a second independent review of the workings of the sanctions regime.

Angela Watkinson: I want to make one or two brief comments. I will start with an anecdote that seems typical of what other Members have alluded to this afternoon. It does not relate to my local Jobcentre Plus, but comes from the son of a friend. He attended his local Jobcentre Plus to apologise for the fact that he could not attend his routine interview because he had a job interview at the same time. He was told that he would lose his benefits, which seems absolutely inexplicable. There was also someone on the door, almost a bouncer, who stopped him getting past to explain the situation to someone who might have been a bit more reasonable. I do not know how often that happens, but clearly there are occasions when unwise decisions are made.
	The other side of the coin is that I have heard evidence, also anecdotal, that some claimants are unco-operative and that, despite repeated requests for documents, attendance or information, still do not comply, and sanctions are only brought in at that stage when nothing else has worked. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that when he responds to the debate.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) referred to food banks. From a few cases in which I have met individuals who use food banks and discussed their circumstances with them, I know that they often have debt repayments to make. Their benefits are certainly insufficient for that, because they were never intended for debt repayments. The underlying problem is that people are getting into debt that they cannot manage or cope with, and that is what is leading to the increased use of food banks.
	The whole benefits system is, after all, a contract with the taxpayer. We must be fair both to the taxpayer and to claimants. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) referred to the compliance system under universal credit, which sounds to me like a great improvement. I support his suggestion, if it is at all possible to implement it, to improve the situation for claimants and the taxpayer.

Yvonne Fovargue: No one disputes the fact that there is a place for sanctions in the benefits system, because there has to be a fair way of dealing with the minority of claimants who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with requirements. However, I think that everyone would agree that sanctions must be fair, that they must not be unduly harsh or punitive and that they cannot be based on information that is inaccurate or misunderstood. For many people who are sanctioned, their understanding of the regime fails the test.
	Ultimately, we all want to get people back into the labour market if they are fit and able and there are jobs for them. Sanctions that are disproportionate and unfair, ironically, will have precisely the opposite effect; they impoverish people and leave them less able to move from welfare to work. The sanctions regime was ramped up in late 2012. As we have heard, the imposition of a sanction means the temporary suspension of jobseeker’s allowance for a minimum of four weeks. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said, it is different for universal credit, which is “until engagement” plus seven days, which seems a lot fairer. The maximum sanction period is three years. Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, has rightly described that as “excessively harsh”.
	I understand that the Government like to see themselves as taking a tough and no-nonsense approach, which implies that large numbers of claimants are really benefit cheats, but the fact is that, in my constituency and many others, overly harsh sanctions mean that families are going without essentials. A minimum of four weeks without benefits can lead to desperate measures, and many of my constituents are visiting food banks for the first time. I have evidence of that. Three advisers from my local citizens advice bureau were recently offered employment by the council on the welfare support desk in Wigan Life Centre. During February and March, those three workers assessed 560 applications for food bank parcels as genuine. Of those, 130—in only two months—were identified as stemming solely from the application of a benefit sanction. Ironically, I think that those were the lucky ones. They were not like the young man with learning difficulties who came to see me in my constituency office. He had been eating out of bins for three weeks because he did not understand the letter he received and thought that his benefits had been taken off him permanently. He had got the letter too late to attend the interview.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) that the sanctions are also counter-productive. Disproportionately long sanctions create barriers to the search for work. The four-week minimum means that claimants spend more time dealing with acute needs, such as obtaining food and heating, than looking for a job. Bureau advisers have reported to me that they see many clients who have been sanctioned spending a significant amount of time seeking alternative means to pay for essentials, such as food and utilities. Indeed, they are being forced into the hands of payday lenders, so they are getting into debt. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) said, benefits are not intended to pay debts.
	Since the changes of late 2012, the number of people being sanctioned has soared. After the implementation of the new sanctions system in October 2012, there was
	an 11% rise in sanctions for jobseekers. The most recent full-year data show a 24% year-on-year rise in the number of sanctions for jobseekers. For ESA, the whole year shows an increase of 156%. In the period just after the ESA sanctions regime changed in December 2012, there was a 98% increase. That is a huge increase, and I cannot believe that that number of people deliberately did not engage with the system.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that we need to review the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. If the sanctions are getting more onerous, why are more people being caught by them? Surely we would expect harsher punishments to bring people into line and lessen infractions, if indeed their behaviour is deliberate. What better evidence is there that these reforms are being driven by cost-cutting targets and have little to do with helping people to find work? Jobcentre staff are incentivised to get people off the dole; they should be rewarded for getting people back into employment.
	There would be more faith in the sanctions regime if it were based on good decision making and proper assessments of individuals, but all too frequently people cannot comply with it. I was recently given a case by my local citizens advice bureau. A mother attended with her 19-year-old son, who did not engage with the interview. He looked down, and he patently could not read the letters he had received. His mother answered all the questions. Every time he was asked a question, he just looked at his mum for an answer; he clearly could not understand. He lives at home with his parents. In July 2013, he applied for universal credit, which he was awarded. However, he did not attend his interview in September, or his seven other interviews, so he got a low-level sanction. On 9 December, he got a medium-level sanction. In all this time, his mum had not seen the letters. He obviously could not read them and did not understand what was going on.
	Eventually, his mum found the letters, inquired of the jobcentre what was going on, and found that her son had been sanctioned for 891 days. She accompanied him to interviews in February and March but was told that nothing could be done about lifting the sanctions. He went to my local citizens advice bureau, which is in touch with the specialist support unit to establish whether this is consistent with regulations and whether anything can be done. It is obvious that the people at Jobcentre Plus did not have the time to assess this young man, to put it generously, and did not see that he would not understand any of the sanctions letters or requirements on complying for work.
	There is plenty of other evidence of poor communication. In Wigan, a significant number of ESA recipients applying for food parcels have complained that the letters notifying them of the work capability assessment were not received until after the date of the assessment, causing them to be sanctioned. Others have said that they could not attend because they had a hospital appointment and only learned of the sanction when their JSA failed to arrive.
	We clearly need a better understanding of the individual needs of claimants. If we are going to apply this sort of regime, Jobcentre Plus staff need to have the time and the ability to assess the people who are applying for benefits and ensure that the sanctions are fair. There are two ways of encouraging people into work—the carrot
	and the stick. It does not seem fair that on many occasions the wealthy get the carrot of tax cuts and the people on benefits get the stick of unduly harsh sanctions.

Julie Hilling: Nearly 1 million people have had their benefits stopped—the highest number since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced in 1996—but 58% of those who appealed their sanctions won. That is what this debate is about.
	Labour Members do not say that people should not be sanctioned, but we do say that sanctions should be fair. They should be imposed only when claimants wilfully do not do everything that they have agreed to do—unlike the young man I recently met at a protest against Atos, who was like so many people on benefits. He wanted to work, but had suffered a rugby injury and was on ESA. He has worked in construction and had had his own window cleaning company that employed two other people. He went to university but then got his rugby injury, which triggered chronic migraines. He also got depression. The medics are currently trying to work out whether the migraines cause the depression or the depression causes the migraines.
	The young man was sacked from his last job because he had three days off with a migraine. He went on to ESA for three months, after which he was sent for another assessment. He contacted Atos to say that he could not attend because he was in hospital, but he was still sanctioned. He appealed, and Atos actually apologised. He was told that he would not have to have another assessment for at least a month, but was then immediately sent for more assessments. He gave up and went on to JSA, but not before he had attempted suicide. He suffers from a double whammy: as a 30-year-old, he has had to give up his flat because he is entitled only to the shared room rate. We should not be treating ill and disabled people in this way.
	After pressure from Labour Members, the Government agreed to arrange for an independent inquiry into benefits sanctions. When will we see its report? I, for one, am disgusted by the way in which sanctions are being applied unfairly, without good cause, and with no humanity. I wonder how Mr Oakley, who is conducting the inquiry, is going to produce the report, given that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asked how many benefit claimants had been sanctioned for different periods of time, the Minister—not this Minister but the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)—replied that the information was not readily available and it would cost too much to get it.

John Healey: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is not just the number of sanctions but their length? The minimum period is four weeks, so those who are sanctioned spend too much of their time trying to deal with the acute financial problems that that causes rather than looking for work, which might be the purpose of the sanctions in the first place.

Julie Hilling: Absolutely; I agree. If the purpose of a sanction is to give somebody a bit of a shock—to say, “Look, you need to comply with the things that the
	Department is asking you to do”—then it does not need to be four weeks long, a year long, or three years long. We need action to get the person to comply with what they need to do; we do not need them starving, becoming homeless and living in the cold. As my right hon. Friend says, those things do not allow them productively to seek work.
	I am a parliamentary patron of the YMCA, which has undertaken research and produced a report called “Feeling the Benefits”. The YMCA found that in the first seven months after the reforms of October 2012, more than a quarter of a million young people were sanctioned—1,000 every day. It also reported that there has been a significant increase in the number of vulnerable young people being sanctioned, detrimentally affecting their physical and mental well-being. Eighty-four per cent. of the young people surveyed reported that they had had to cut back on or go without food. They said things like: “I didn’t cope, I had no one.” Another said: “It’s how long they left me with no money, knowing I was pregnant and had to buy my own food.” Another said: “I was unable to eat and it was lucky that the YMCA could help.” Another said: “You have a much more negative attitude to life as a whole.” Another said: “It cost me my home and food.” Another said: “I went three months living on food parcels, which is really degrading because you lose all your dignity. It’s not just physically hard, it’s mentally hard.”
	The YMCA reported that sanctions, instead of helping those young people get into work, actually made it harder. One said: “It stopped me searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers.” Another said, most tellingly: “My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment.” The young people accepted the need for sanctions for those not doing what is required of them, but all believed that they had to be fairly applied. Three quarters of them felt that the way in which sanctions were currently being applied was not fair. They believed that there were three main areas where communication had failed: they were not given enough support on how they could avoid being sanctioned, an explanation of why they had been sanctioned or practical advice on what they could do once they had been.
	The YMCA is calling on the Government to do a number of things, including ensuring that key information on the welfare system is better tailored and communicated to young people. It says that a claimant should have an individual as a single point of contact within their local Jobcentre Plus, who should remain constant wherever a claimant is in the system—whether on a work programme, work experience or wherever.
	The YMCA also proposes that young people should receive a clear explanation, in writing and face to face, of why they have been sanctioned, and that claimants who are homeless or in emergency accommodation should be exempt from the same job search rules until they have found somewhere to live. It seems an absolute nonsense that we expect someone who is living on the streets to apply for so many jobs per day when what we need to do is get them into accommodation and make sure they are feeding themselves properly, and then deal with the issue of work. It is a hierarchy of needs—first of all, people need food, water and somewhere to live.
	The YMCA has also proposed that where claimants are living in supported accommodation, as well as providing the claimants themselves with information about a sanction, Jobcentre Plus should provide that information to the supported housing provider. There is an absolute logic there: if a young person who is in difficulty and is being supported is suddenly sanctioned and so is no longer able to pay their rent, they run the risk of falling out even of the supported system.
	The YMCA also proposes that a duty be placed on Jobcentre Plus to provide people being sanctioned with a suitable notice period and an opportunity to have the decision reconsidered prior to removing any benefit payments. I will go on to talk about cases in which, if a proper review had been done in the first place, the sanction would never had been applied and people would not have been left in dire circumstances with no money for a period of time. I hope the Minister will take the time to read the YMCA’s report and will take action on its contents.
	I recently met senior officers in my local Jobcentre Plus. We had a very productive discussion about the difficulties faced by many people and the particular difficulties faced by those whose lives are most chaotic. But as soon as I asked about sanctions, the atmosphere absolutely changed. I asked about targets, and they said that there were definitely no targets—I accept that. However, they then went on to talk about the performance management of Jobcentre Plus staff. An adviser will be spoken to if they do not refer claimants for sanctions often enough. That means the adviser cannot exercise common sense or accept explanations for why a claimant is a few moments late or has been unable to attend their interview that the rest of us would see as perfectly acceptable. The claimant potentially loses benefits immediately until the decision maker either accepts the reasons or applies a sanction. That could push the claimant into debt, leaving them with no food or money for rent, and getting them into difficulty with their housing.
	I have been told that people have been given an appointment on a Sunday and have then been told that they should have realised that the appointment was for a day on which the jobcentre would not be open. They have therefore had their benefits suspended because they were not able to sign on and see their adviser—on a Sunday. There are cases of people who have applied for more jobs than are required but because they did so through a job club or through their own initiative rather than applying on universal job match the jobs were not counted and the claimants were sanctioned.
	The young man who is now a volunteer in my office was given a job advert once as he was leaving the jobcentre and was told that he may like to apply for the job. The first line of the job description asked for a qualification that he did not have so he did not apply for it. He was honest: the next week he went in and said—even though he could have fibbed and said that he had applied for the job, as the jobcentre staff would not have known—that he had not applied for it and gave his reasons why. They sanctioned him, even though he had applied for more jobs than he needed to.
	Another case is that of Peter, who was sent to a Work programme provider. He turned up when he was told to but was told that the programme did not exist and that he should go home. He went back to the jobcentre and
	explained the situation. The work provider backed up his story, but he was still sanctioned for four weeks, because the provider and the jobcentre could not get their story straight.
	I am aware that you are asking me to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have many more cases that I would love to tell the House about—really dire, terrible cases, in which my constituents have been wrongly treated and, it seems to me, punished simply for trying to do the right thing. One thing I would say is that if the jobcentre would only talk to the person, find out what had happened and why, start from a point of believing their story and carry out the investigation before they applied the sanctions, we would not have people living in such misery.
	Although I hate sanctions, I accept that some people do not engage or do the things that they are called on to do to receive benefits. I accept that those people should face sanctions, but those sanctions have to be based on common sense. If someone is in hospital or at a job interview, or is held up by a traffic accident, they should not have their benefits cut off. If they cannot read, are ill on the day of the appointment or are given the wrong day by the jobcentre they should not be left with no money to feed themselves and their family. The current sanction regime is not fair, is not working properly and needs to be changed.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Members on both sides of the House who secured today’s debate. Like other Members who have spoken today, I have been disturbed by the surge in constituents coming to me because they have been sanctioned in circumstances they consider unfair, and I am profoundly concerned about the way in which the new sanctions regime is working in practice. There is a broad consensus that there is a role for sanctions in those cases where an individual is determined not to comply with requirements, but sanctions need to be proportionate, consistently and properly applied and, if they are to act as any kind of deterrent, the last resort, not the first recourse. It is clear to me from what we have already heard today, from cases in my own constituency and from the evidence collected by Citizens Advice Scotland that the sanctions regime is not functioning as it should. In the time available, I will focus on just a few of the most pertinent issues.
	The first is that sanctions are being applied in ways that are not always proportionate to the infringement, and do not adequately take into account claimants’ personal circumstances. Like the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), I have personal knowledge of a case in which a claimant was sanctioned because they were attending a job interview at the time when they were supposed be at the jobcentre appointment. Citizens Advice has highlighted a string of similar cases. That is just nonsense—it is absolutely crazy. There are also instances of people being sanctioned who had hospital appointments or family funerals to attend. Most of us in work would expect our employer to be flexible about allowing leave of absence in such circumstances; it is only reasonable to allow jobseekers
	a similar degree of flexibility to deal with unavoidable personal circumstances such as hospital appointments or illness.
	Some of my biggest concerns are about people who are living with health conditions or disabilities. Mental health problems or mild learning disabilities in particular are sometimes invisible—indeed, they might not even be diagnosed—but they can play a huge role in why someone struggles to find and stay in work, or why they may be struggling to comply with jobseeking requirements. I have encountered a number of people sanctioned who have low levels of comprehension, and in some cases cognitive impairment and very limited literacy. They have not deliberately flouted requirements; they have failed to understand them. It has been hard for my staff to explain the situation to them and it is very difficult for them to comply with what is expected of them.
	Frankly, some of the people I have dealt with are very vulnerable individuals. Sanctioning has only exacerbated that vulnerability, in some cases pushing people into severe hardship and reliance on assistance from local food banks. Food bank use has soared in my constituency, which is one of the wealthiest parts of Scotland, and one of the main drivers of that has been the malfunctioning of the sanctions regime. We need to do a much better job of identifying disabled people, including those with mental health problems and learning disabilities, and should make sure not just that they have the necessary support to find suitable employment but that communication with them takes account of their ability to comprehend and process the information they are getting, and takes account of their health.
	Another major concern that has not been dwelt on today relates to the challenges of job searching in rural areas. I am very fortunate to represent an area where unemployment is among the lowest in Scotland, but it is also one of the most rural parts of Scotland, with a very high proportion of people living in the countryside or in small villages. Public transport is very limited and there is a shortage of affordable housing. Those on the lowest incomes, who have the least choice about where they live, often find themselves in the most rural parts, where both the rents and the demand for housing tend to be lower. They may or may not have access to a bus service, but if they do it is likely to be fairly infrequent, there may be no direct route to where they have to attend interviews, and fares are really expensive. As of next week, a day bus ticket will be £7.70 for the Buchan area and £9 for Banffshire. For somebody living on benefits, that is a huge proportion of their spending power—money that they really need to be spending on heating, food and other essentials of daily life. If we expect people to attend interviews some distance from their homes, we need to understand that it could be expensive and difficult for them to do that.
	Many parts of my constituency do not have broadband access, and even where it is available it costs significantly more than comparable services in urban areas. That makes it very difficult for claimants: it means they may have to travel to a public library to do even the most rudimentary job search. That costs them a lot of money—money that they just do not have. Citizens Advice Scotland has highlighted cases where sanctions have been applied to people in rural areas who then find
	themselves with no money to enable them to travel to jobcentres or libraries, thus compounding their original offence and leaving them facing further sanction. That seems entirely counter-productive and it compounds the rural isolation and poverty already faced by people on very low incomes.
	The sanctions regime is not working as it should. There is significant evidence of sanctions being applied incorrectly, inconsistently, inappropriately and disproportionately. Looking ahead to the introduction of universal credit and a single household payment, I am worried about the significant potential for the situation to get a lot worse. Whole families could be pushed unnecessarily into severe hardship and destitution by all the extra costs and unintended consequences. Unless we deal with these problems now, we will store up much greater problems for the future, so I urge the Government to look at their guidance, review it and make sure that their regime is actually fit for purpose.

Ian Lavery: I wonder whether it is a sign of the times that more Members sat in the Chamber to debate badgers than are present to debate the poor and the vulnerable.
	I will begin by placing on the record my belief that personal responsibility and compliance are extremely important for individuals seeking employment. However, the current regime seeks to penalise those who offer responsibility but are, for various reasons, disproportionately sanctioned. In many cases, that means abject poverty not just for them, but for the people around them. I am totally convinced that this period in our history will be looked at by generations to come with horror. It is possible that people will think that MPs acted in a barbaric fashion. We are living through an era in which being disabled, poor or disfranchised basically attracts state punishment rather than help. That is a sad indictment of these times.

Andrew McDonald: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is it not incumbent on Members to look on those who are vulnerable and on the margins with respect and to offer them support rather than condemnation and punishment?

Ian Lavery: Absolutely. This year is the 180th anniversary of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The Poor Law contained some incredibly harsh ideas, but they seem to have found fertile ground and taken seed among a new generation of coalition MPs. The Act was based on a royal commission that was largely the work of Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick and that took some extreme yet strikingly familiar views. One was that poverty was essentially caused by the individual, rather than by the economic and social conditions. It was therefore claimed that the pauper claimed relief regardless of his merits; that large families got the most, which encouraged irresponsible marriages; that women claimed relief for illegitimate children, which encouraged immorality; and that labourers had no incentive to work. It was recommended that workhouse conditions should be less desirable than those of an independent labourer of the lowest class. It was a fight to the bottom. There was no attempt 180 years ago to improve the working conditions of the lowest class. They wanted people to work in a
	worse position, below even that of the lowest of the working class. That attitude pervades today. Mark Twain once said:
	“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
	Have we really regressed almost 200 years socially?
	Undoubtedly, welfare reform is causing misery for people up and down the country. It is an ideological crusade to shrink the state, led by people who I believe simply do not care about what happens to the individuals or the consequences for communities as a whole. The approach of the Department for Work and Pensions to sanctions has been characterised by the chaotic approach to universal credit and the personal independence payment. Statistics showing that nearly 60% of decisions on sanctions have been overturned have now been removed from the DWP website. This is a regime that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society—the very people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) correctly says, we should be helping.
	Even in the worst cases of non-compliance with the DWP rules, who actually suffers when sanctions are applied? When crimes under the law are committed, it is the perpetrator who is punished, but when DWP rules are broken, the people around that person are also punished. No thought is given to the family, the partner or anybody else associated with the individual being sanctioned. It may well be that it is one person who is sanctioned, but it results in a broad swipe at everyone in a household, family or circle of friends who have the obligation of the state transferred to them. The situation has been described as torture by hunger. Should this be happening in a civilised society? Should we be engaging in sanctioning people and forcing them to go to food banks? These are people who generally need assistance in life. The reality is that for every person sanctioned for the things the right-wing press prints on its front pages, there are thousands more who are forced into degradation as the victims of circumstance, officious advisers and cruel policy.
	Let me describe one or two cases. A man in my constituency visited my offices in desperate need. He had been sanctioned after missing an appointment with a work training provider. He had a problem with his heart and he had had to visit hospital—he was sanctioned for being in hospital. The sanction was later overturned, but not before he was driven almost to starvation and the local food bank after visiting my office in a desperate state. All he had eaten for three days was field mushrooms and eggs borrowed from a neighbour. I am not sure that anyone in this House wants to see that sort of thing happen. As politicians, that is not what we are here to do.
	The benefits of a man from the south-east who had been blind since birth were stopped because he was not replying to letters. The DWP was failing to send him letters in Braille or any other accessible format. He did not reply because he did not even know he had them. This man had worked for most of his life, but because of the DWP’s error he was forced to turn to a payday loan to survive. The chaotic system forced him into hunger and poverty.
	So out of control is the situation that a website now documents the cruel, arbitrary and ridiculous reasons why people have had their benefits stopped. I urge hon. Members to look at it, but I have some examples:
	“You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.”
	Another example is:
	“You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.”
	How ridiculous and how absurd is this system?
	“You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.”
	It is an outrageous situation.
	There is of course a clear link between benefit delays or changes and people turning to food banks. As many hon. Members have mentioned, more than 650,000 people now use food banks, and there is a strong link between that and benefit sanctioning. Serious questions need to be asked about whether people are being deliberately sanctioned to massage the employment figures, because at any one time 100,000 people may be in the churn of those sanctioned. At such a time, they are not figures in the unemployment statistics; they are cases in a fiddling of the unemployment statistics. The Minister may wish to target that point.
	In my last minute, I want to mention the pressure on staff in DWP offices. The failure to impose enough sanctions means that many of them receive performance improvement plans or notices to improve, which might ultimately result in their losing their employment.
	In conclusion, as a society, we will be judged harshly by history for punishing the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable, as well as for not doing enough to stop the determined drive of Government Members to drag us back to the Poor Law of 1834, the shameful establishing of IDS UK—in dire straits.

Stephen Timms: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on his initiative, as a result of which we have had a very interesting debate.
	The debate raises this question: what has become of Jobcentre Plus? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has just described, those who work in jobcentres say that they are under enormous pressure to sanction people’s benefits. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton referred to the “toxic” culture in Jobcentre Plus. People who depend on it for help say that too often its main interest is now in catching them out.
	As we have heard, sanctions are vital to the system. They encourage effective jobsearch, and a sound rationale for them was set out in Professor Paul Gregg’s report for the Government in 2008. They featured in the new deal and the future jobs fund, and we have made it clear that they will also feature in our compulsory jobs guarantee. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) argued, sanctions need to be applied fairly and proportionately. Claimants must understand their responsibilities and the consequences of not meeting them. That is not the case at the moment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) correctly pointed out. The Child Poverty Action Group
	has referred to the frequent very vague letters from jobcentres, which people cannot understand, telling them what they are supposed to have done or not done. The Work and Pensions Committee report in January set out an approach to sanctions that makes a great deal of sense, and I must say that I was disappointed by the quite negative tone of the Government’s response.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was right to remind the House, as other hon. Members have done, that rocketing benefits sanctions have fuelled the extraordinary growth in food bank demand. Volunteers say that a lot of people at food banks have no idea why they have been sanctioned. We might expect that Ministers, after hearing that from the Trussell Trust, would want to find out what is going on. Instead, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has refused to meet the Trussell Trust and, quite bizarrely, has accused it of having a political agenda. The Trussell Trust therefore had to make do with meeting the Prime Minister. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Select Committee recommendation that the Department should compile data on the number of signposts to food banks it is making has been rejected.
	The first that some people know about a sanction is when they find out that there is no money in their bank account. Sanctions are supposed to incentivise people to undertake fruitful jobsearch, but if people do not know which rule they have broken and they are not told, a sanction cannot incentivise them. What has gone wrong?
	Last week, at the invitation of Tesco, I visited its new store in Woolwich. The company personnel director told me that of the 400 staff the store had recruited when it opened in 2012, 100 had been chosen who had previously been unemployed. She introduced me to four of them, and it was frankly inspiring to hear how the opportunity to work was changing their lives and to hear how they are now optimistic about their prospects.
	I took the opportunity to ask the four members of staff about their experience of Jobcentre Plus. Their answers were uniformly depressing. They said that advisers wanted to catch them out and to come up with reasons for imposing a sanction. One of them told me as a matter of fact that Jobcentre Plus advisers have to impose eight sanctions per month. He might have a point, because I understand that eight sanctions per month is regarded as the norm for an adviser. The Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong, but I think that it is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) pointed out, the number of sanctions issued by each adviser features in their regular appraisals. It is therefore not surprising that jobseekers get the impression that advisers have such a target. Indeed, I suspect that jobseekers are probably quite close to the truth about what is going on.
	The reputation of Jobcentre Plus is now terribly poor. Examples such as the one given by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), make it clear why that is the case, and there are too many examples like those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck.

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is talking about the disincentives in the system that lead to more sanctions. Does he agree that one problem may be that the single
	measure of performance in Jobcentre Plus is the benefits off-flow, and that anyone sanctioned is counted in that way, even though they are not coming off benefits to get into work?

Stephen Timms: I agree. There are several problems with the benefits off-flow measure, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is one of them. Citizens Advice has made that point in the briefing for this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) drew my attention to a report from West Dunbartonshire citizens advice bureau called “Unjust and Uncaring: A report on conditionality and benefits sanctions and their impact on clients”, which was published just a few weeks ago. It is full of depressing examples of the kind that we have heard in this debate.
	Community Links works in my constituency in east London. It produced a policy briefing on sanctions in January, which states:
	“There is a culture of fear and misunderstanding surrounding sanctions: some people are afraid of making tiny mistakes such as being one minute late for a meeting.”
	The briefing includes a case study of Rita, a young and strongly work-oriented woman who was employed for six years until being made redundant. She has a degree in journalism and aspires to a career, not just to a job. She was sanctioned for non-attendance at a meeting, even though she had agreed with her jobcentre adviser to participate in work experience elsewhere. We have heard a number of examples of that. She was also incorrectly sanctioned for missing a meeting while at a pre-arranged hospital appointment, even though she had informed her adviser in the official way. She avoided that sanction, but only by insisting on speaking to the line manager at the jobcentre. One sanction meant that she did not have enough money to attend a job interview. She blames the jobcentre directly for preventing her from potentially getting a job.
	Rita made the following comments:
	“I had times when I literally had no food and no gas. I just lay in my bed looking at the walls. I couldn’t travel or make any calls. I couldn’t even afford to get the bus to sign-on, but I knew that if I didn’t go I’d be suspended again. It’s like a vicious cycle. I turned up at the Jobcentre actually hungry. I hadn’t eaten for two days and I was scared that if I was five minutes late they would suspend me again.”
	She was present on Monday this week at the launch at Church House of Community Links’ troubling study “Tipping the balance?” on the cumulative impact of welfare reform in Newham.
	The evidence that we have heard in this debate makes it clear that there is a serious problem. A year ago, I asked a parliamentary question:
	“what was the total amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions in each of the last four years.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 986W.]
	The answer told me that in 2009-10, £11 million was withheld and that just in the first six months of 2012-13, £60 million was withheld. In cash terms, that is more than a tenfold rise.
	I have since requested an updated answer. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), told me in an answer in February:
	“The information is not available in the format requested. Trends in sanctions are better understood” —[Official Report, 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 268W.]—
	in some other way. It is not clear to me why the information was available a year ago, but is not available now. It is not the job of the Minister to tell us what questions she would like us to ask; Ministers are required to answer the questions that we do ask. I tabled the question again yesterday and I ask the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who is much more reasonable in these respects, to have a word with his right hon. Friend and ask her this time to answer the question that she is asked.
	A very large number of sanctions are overturned on appeal. Those sanctions should not have been imposed in the first place. The Policy Exchange report, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned, said:
	“After reconsideration and/or appeal, 29% of those who receive their first ‘lower’ tier sanction have it overturned, meaning around 5,600 of them a month are wrongly sanctioned.”
	In February, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, DWP statistics showed an appeal success rate of nearly 60%. Those statistics are gone from the Department’s website and have not yet come back corrected. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what the correct figure is and when the figures, having been corrected, will be republished.
	Last summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West reminded us, the Opposition forced the Government to set up a review of sanctions. Ministers appointed Matthew Oakley to carry it out, although they drew up rather narrow terms of reference. I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss the issues with Mr Oakley, who has set about his task with thoroughness and diligence. I hope that his report, when we see it in a few weeks’ time, will lead to important improvements. However, it is very disappointing that today’s Government response to the January Select Committee report reneges on the commitment to a further wider review.
	The Policy Exchange report says:
	“we recommend a series of cumulative increases in sanction duration for those who consistently fail to comply with the conditionality regime. This reflects an aim to make sanctions less punitive for those who may have made genuine mistakes”.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, that comes from the ideological standpoint of the Minister’s coalition partners. I hope that he will indicate whether he accepts that it is a helpful direction of travel.
	Sanctions by Jobcentre Plus have become far more punitive. They explain a large part of the explosion in food bank demand. Many people have no idea why they have been sanctioned. It is agreed across the political spectrum that the system has gone wrong, as we have heard in this debate. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he understands the problem and that he intends to do something about it.

Steve Webb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Members who supported him on securing this
	debate. This has been a worthwhile discussion and a number of important issues have been raised to which I will try to respond in the brief time available to me.
	I think that there might be more common ground between the Government and the Opposition than has been apparent. It is also the Government’s position, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members said, that we want a sanctions system that works and that is effective, proportionate and well communicated to claimants. We are united on that. I was struck during the debate by the overwhelming view—although not the unanimous view, because there was at least one exception—that sanctions have a part to play in the system. Those who sign on and claim benefit take on responsibilities. If those responsibilities are to mean anything, there have to be consequences for not adhering to them.
	At the outset, it might be worth my setting out the claimant commitment, which is now central to the benefit system and to the process of rights and responsibilities. People who sign on for jobseeker’s allowance now go through the claimant commitment. When they have a first interview with a work coach, the coach reviews their circumstances and capabilities—that relates to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—and completes the “My Jobseekers Profile” to capture key information. Reflecting on that, the coach sets out the requirements that the claimant must meet to be entitled to JSA, ensuring that those are right for the individual. That is how the system is intended to work. The work coach must take account of any health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. Those requirements are recorded in the claimant commitment, together with a clear explanation of the consequences of any failure to comply. The commitment must be agreed by the claimant.
	The coach then works with the individual to help them construct a detailed plan that sets out what they will do each week to meet their requirements. The process is designed to ensure that our expectations and requirements are reasonable, and that the claimant understands them. It is intended to provide claimants with the support that they need to establish an effective plan of action that, if followed, will ensure that they comply and that they never face a sanction. That is what the Government are trying to achieve. We do not want to sanction anybody. Clearly, there are times when people do not fulfil their requirements. When sanctions are imposed, there are mechanisms in place for challenging them. They can be overturned when people have a good reason why they should be.
	I want to clarify some of the points that were raised in the debate. First, Members asked whether 60% of JSA appeals were overturned. As has been said, the figures appeared, but there was an error in them and they were withdrawn. Revised figures are being prepared, in line with the code of practice for official statistics. Those will be presented as soon as possible. To give the House an order of magnitude, the latest official statistics, which have been published separately by the Ministry of Justice, which deals with the appeals, show that in the third quarter of 2012-13 not 60% but 17% of JSA disputes heard by the tribunal service resulted in a decision in favour of the claimant. That provides a slightly different perspective.

Andrew McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Webb: I will not for now, because I only have a short period and I want to respond to all the points that Members have made. [Interruption.] It was a mistake. The hon. Gentleman asks why it was 60%. There was a miscoding. That was not the correct figure.
	It is important that the sanctions regime is evaluated. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for his positive comments on the work that is being done by Matthew Oakley, which is looking specifically at the sanctions regime. It is considering communications to claimants. A number of hon. Members have stated that for sanctions to be effective we must communicate to people what has happened to them and why. I accept that entirely, and if right hon. and hon. Members have examples—some of which they cited during the debate—the Employment Minister would be pleased to receive details of individual cases where the processes that we want to work are not working.
	To return to the evaluation, Matthew Oakley will soon complete his report. It will come to the Department and we will respond positively and constructively. We will then publish not only our response but the independent findings of the reviewers in full. There is no secrecy about that; it will be in the public domain, and rightly so, together with the actions we are taking. That is not the only evaluation. We have published a range of evidence, including the Jobcentre Plus offer evaluation and the universal credit customer survey, which provide information about customer awareness of sanctions and the effectiveness of the regime in encouraging compliance. We also monitor the use of sanctions and publish quarterly statistics. In a sense, we could have a second and third review and all the rest, but the focus is on seeing what the first independent reviewer says and publicly responding constructively to that, making changes, publishing evidence, monitoring and taking action, rather than on starting another review with another reviewer for perhaps six or nine months, or whatever, so that it is Christmas before things change. We want to get on with learning from these reviews.
	The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, asked about sanctions for employment and support allowance, and it is important to stress the low level of ESA sanctions. At any point, fewer than 0.5% of individuals in the work-related activity group are sanctioned, so although volumes have increased because the number of people on ESA has gone up, that rate remains low. It is not the case that people on ESA are being sanctioned all over the place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) mentioned the link to housing benefit—I felt a certain amount of nostalgia when he explained to the House where Sandwell is, because that is where I was born and went to school. He made the important point that if someone is sanctioned on jobseeker’s allowance, that should not lead to the loss of housing benefit. Although income-related JSA passports to housing benefit, housing benefit is available on the basis of low income and not necessarily on whether someone satisfies the requirements for JSA. We entirely accept that we must ensure that people are not incorrectly thrown off housing benefit because their JSA has been sanctioned in some way, and we are considering that issue as part of the Oakley review. It is not our intention for people to lose their housing benefit.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) raised an interesting question of whether, for example, someone who is sanctioned under universal credit risks losing the whole household payment. Funnily enough, that problem is sorted out under universal credit, because instead of having JSA here and housing benefit there, and the JSA computer telling the council that someone is not on JSA any more and their housing benefit stopping, if it is all one payment the sanction is just to the personal allowance bit and housing help remains unaffected. It will be better under universal credit.
	I was pleased to hear from a number of hon. Members that the universal sanctions regime is attractive and responds so that when people correct whatever caused the sanction, in many cases that sanction will stop. I will pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Employment Minister the view of a number of Members in this debate that the sooner we move forward with the universal credit sanction regime, the better. I am encouraged by that.
	On the proportionality of sanctions, there has not been much discussion about the detail of the higher, middle and lower rates, but since the system was introduced the proportion of claimants sanctioned at the highest level fell markedly after the introduction of the new system. Hardship payments are available—again, that has not been discussed much—at a rate of 60% of the benefit. People may not be aware of that, but where someone has no income it is important to be aware that hardship payments are available at a rate of 60% of benefit.

Julie Hilling: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Webb: I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I want to respond to the points already made.
	There was some discussion of targets—this is a bit of a chestnut—and to be categorical, there are no targets for sanctions; that is not the way it works. The point was made that statistics are gathered at jobcentre level and among advisers on their use of the sanctions system, and again the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I am wrecking her credibility here—made exactly the right point. We want consistency, and we cannot know that we have that if we do not gather data on what individual advisers are doing. If people go to a jobcentre and talk to adviser A or adviser B, and adviser A sanctions everyone who walks through the door and adviser B never sanctions anyone, the system is not working.

Andrew McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Webb: No, I will not.
	It is not that individual advisers are expected to hit a target or number; we are monitoring because we expect both distribution and consistency. That is what we are trying to do. It should not be interpreted as a target; it is simply about us monitoring what is going on.
	A couple of hon. Members suggested that sanctions are about trying to massage the unemployment numbers, which is complete nonsense. Somebody who is looking for work is still counted in the unemployment figures. The figures published every month and headlined on the BBC are the labour force survey numbers, and if people are looking for work, they count as unemployed.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Webb: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
	A further point missed by a lot of hon. Members is that two-thirds of sanctions are not disallowances. Someone’s JSA might be reduced because of a sanction, but they do not come off JSA and still count in the claimant count numbers. Of all the sanction numbers, only a third are disallowances.
	On the unemployment figures, the JSA numbers have been coming down because of reduced inflows, not because we have been sanctioning people off benefit.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Steve Webb: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I have not given way to anybody else, and I hope he will forgive me if I am consistent. [Interruption.] If the House would like me to take the intervention, I will happily do so.

Stephen Timms: I am very grateful to the Minister. Will he confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, that sanctions contribute to the benefit off-flow figures, which are the key to incentivising jobcentres and advisers?

Steve Webb: As I say, in two thirds of cases where people are sanctioned, they do not actually flow off JSA. Their JSA claim is regarded as continuing, so only a fraction of those numbers count as coming off benefit. Most people are still on JSA, even though they are sanctioned. It is clearly not the case that this is anything to do with the claim—it patently is not.
	I have sought to be as consensual as I can. The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton made extraordinary remarks about the Chancellor’s approach to the macro-economy. Given that we have record numbers of people in work and record rates of employment, the idea that that is somehow mishandling the economy is extraordinary.
	The key point is that we recognise that the sanctions regime needs to be kept under constant review. An independent review is under way. We will publish that and respond to it positively. If right hon. and hon. Members have individual cases they wish to draw to our attention, we are very happy to look at them. I think the House is united in saying: yes people have responsibilities, and yes there are consequences when they do not meet those responsibilities, but we all want to see a sanctions regime that is fair and proportionate. That remains the position of the Government.

Michael Meacher: The Minister talks, in his very earnest way, about the claimant commitment. He does not seem to realise that there is a complete disconnect between how the system is supposed to work and how it is actually working on the ground. We are not talking about a few isolated or exceptional examples. I quoted dozens of cases, as did hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. He needs to take account of the realities, not a dream of what he would like to be real.
	The Minister picked up on my remarks about the Chancellor. The most effective way to cut the deficit is not through prolonged austerity and sanctioning, but
	by expanding the economy and job creation. That is exactly what has been done in the United States, which is now 5% above pre-crash levels. Here, we are 1.5% below pre-crash levels.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made useful points about the appeal procedure taking far too long and being far too costly. There should be an attempt to combine it with the procedure for universal credit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the very high numbers, contrary to the impression given by the Minister, of people being sanctioned. Some 5%—about 60,000 people—are still being sanctioned per month. The causes of sanctions are often unquestionably trivial, wrong and lacking common-sense discretion. She spoke about the need for another survey—not just the Oakley survey on how the system works—to consider the impact on claimants and whether they are more likely to seek work.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) made the important point that sanctions should be used only as a last resort. That is clearly not the case at the present time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly said that people are impoverished by sanctions and less able to find work, and that they often do not understand the process being imposed on them. DWP staff should be incentivised not for the numbers they sanction, but for the numbers they get back into work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made an eloquent case about how people are not helped to find work, and that finding work becomes harder as a result of sanctions. She gave examples of how sanctions are often applied unfairly, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who spoke of the system not being fit for purpose, particularly in rural areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech, as always, which made a comparison with how sanctions work and the less eligibility principle of the Victorian poor law. He thought that no attention is being given to the impact on the victim, which is bad enough, but what about the family, the partner and the children who are being made to suffer?
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made a very effective case for comprehensive reform. For all these reasons, I am extremely unconvinced by the Minister’s reply. However hard he was trying to convince us that his heart is in the right place, the results on the ground do not merit that. For all those reasons, I hope the whole House agrees that we need another review. We need a review that considers the impact, severity and targeting of sanctioning, and we need a reduction in the number of cases where it is used.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and calls on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.

Civil Service Reform

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mr Bernard Jenkin to speak for between 10 and 15 minutes.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the Eighth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, on Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed, HC 74, and the Government response, HC 955, and the First Report from the Liaison Committee, on Civil Service: lacking capacity, HC 884, and the Government response, HC 1216.
	I shall be as swift as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about these two reports. The main conclusion of both of them is that our civil service faces challenges that can be addressed only through the establishment of a cross-party commission on the future of the civil service in Parliament.
	Let me make clear at the outset that there is far more on which we can agree than disagree. I support many of the current reforms, such as those involving procurement, the work of the Efficiency and Reform Group and innovations in IT and digital government, but who would disagree with the suggestion that reforms such as those, although necessary, are not sufficient? This is not to denigrate Ministers or civil servants; indeed, this is an opportunity for us to thank all civil servants and pay tribute to their dedication and achievements; but when concerns do arise, they all raise questions about accountability, trust—particularly trust between Ministers and officials—and leadership. Those are fundamental, and determine whether reform will succeed or fail.
	The civil service is one of the great institutions of state. Under our constitution, the Executive exercises the royal prerogative, and enjoys substantial control over the legislature and appointments to the judiciary. Governments come and go, and, in the absence of a codified constitution or formal separation of powers, it is this body of permanent officials that underpins the constitutional stability of our country. That is why a permanent and impartial civil service was established. The civil service has no separate legal personality: the Crown, Ministers and the civil service are, in law, indivisible. However, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Parliament rather than the royal prerogative is now the legal source of authority for the management of the civil service, and it therefore falls to Parliament to address the future of the civil service. The only question is how that can best be done.
	Some take the view that Ministers need more power, especially power to appoint and dismiss officials, while others believe that any move in that direction challenges the very principle on which the present civil service is founded. These questions should therefore be decided by Parliament, which is the only institution with the legitimacy and authority to do so. We can all agree that reform should be based on cross-party consensus, but that consensus cannot be a private one between Ministers and aspirant Ministers. It should be based on the widest possible range of evidence from those with practical and academic expertise and experience: think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research, Reform,
	and the Institute for Government. However, Parliament as a whole should be the guardian of that consensus, which is why any commission on the civil service should be a parliamentary commission.

Caroline Spelman: Over the last 17 years we have been in a unique position, as Ministers in all three main parties have had relatively recent experience of working with the civil service. Would not cashing in on that recent experience—particularly coalition Government Ministers’ experience of interacting with the civil service—be very valuable to the understanding that Parliament can bring to this matter?

Bernard Jenkin: I wholly agree. I am extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for the proposal, and for her indication of willingness to serve on the commission should the House of Commons invite her to do so.
	The launch of GovernUp today—to coincide with the debate—by two of the sponsors of the motion is something to celebrate, but it is also further evidence of the urgent need for a commission. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), but I am sure they will agree that too many excellent think-tank reports on the civil service have sunk without trace. Only Parliament can put the necessary authority behind a programme of reform: a parliamentary commission could not be ignored.

Anne Begg: Will the commission’s remit include the Scottish civil service, which after all is the responsibility of the home civil service? It is not clear at the moment where the demarcation lines lie, or, indeed, where accountability lies, especially as there is quite a fevered political atmosphere in Scotland at the moment and it is not always clear that the Scottish civil service is acting with the impartiality one would expect.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I can in fact inform the House that the Public Administration Select Committee is doing something very specifically on the impartiality of the civil service—and we still only have one civil service in the United Kingdom—in respect of the conduct of referendums. I am going to avoid being distracted by that topic, however.

Francis Maude: On a pure point of fact, since 1922 the civil service in Northern Ireland has been separate.

Bernard Jenkin: Touché, as they say. I am most grateful for that information. I am sure it would have been in the Government’s evidence to our Committee.
	Before I continue, I draw the House’s attention to the names on motion 36 under “Remaining orders and notices” in today’s Order Book. Motion 36 would set a more limited remit than we originally proposed and determine the Commons membership of the commission on the civil service. The other place indicated last week that it would reciprocate and I can inform the House that the former Lord Justice General of Scotland and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, has indicated that he would
	chair this commission if invited to do so. The names of former Secretaries of State, former Ministers and the clear majority of chairs of Select Committees on our motion, along with the support of the other place, represent a real and powerful cross-party consensus that would give civil service reform the impetus and urgency it needs.
	As we consider accountability, trust and leadership at the top of Government, it is important to understand what extraordinary demands we place on Ministers and senior officials. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the performance of their Departments, like directors to their shareholders, but unlike in almost any other walk of life they have to rely on people they do not appoint and cannot easily remove. In addition, today’s Ministers feel accountable for a system that has become somewhat unaccountable.
	PASC has watched the Government’s policy on the civil service evolve. To start with there was much talk about change in Government but no plan for how change would be led and implemented. In our 2011 report “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership”, PASC recommended that the Government should formulate a comprehensive change programme articulating what the civil service is for. The civil service reform plan of 2012 indicates that the experience of Ministers in Government has had an impact on their thinking about the civil service, but it does not meet our recommendation.

Mark Harper: On the urgency of the task, I note that the date for this commission to report is my birthday, which will be a lovely birthday present, and I also note the juxtaposition of that date with the timing of when this House will be dissolved ahead of a general election. Does having this commission reporting just before the House is dissolved meet my hon. Friend’s desire urgently to address this whole issue?

Bernard Jenkin: The alternative is that we put it off. Perhaps the commission could finish more quickly, but these are very large and difficult subjects to deal with. The proposal one hears in the corridors of Westminster is that people want to put this off until after the general election. I suggest we cannot wait and I will come on to that point.
	The civil service reform plan was published two years later and most Ministers past and present today still agree that getting things done takes far too long and what is often presented to Ministers or implemented is too late or not of sufficient quality. The Minister for the Cabinet Office himself told us there had even been examples of “deliberate obstruction” of ministerial decisions by officials. My right hon. Friend has also described civil servants as:
	“Fabulous...Able, bright, energetic, ambitious to change the world.”
	I am sure he would agree that no one joins the civil service to block Ministers or Government policy. People join it with the best of intentions and motivations, to serve the country, so why would Ministers feel that those same civil servants are blocking or frustrating their decisions, or not giving truth to power? Why would officials feel that that was the right or only way to act?
	We do not need to rehearse examples of recent Whitehall failures, but we do need to ask why they occur and how Whitehall can learn from them. What are the common factors? We all agree that there is too much churn at the top in Whitehall, leading to discontinuity and loss of experience. How did it get like that? Problems such as a lack of key skills and competences are far from new, so we must also ask why, after repeated efforts to reform Whitehall in the conventional way over the past few decades, the same problems persist. The hardest thing to reform in any organisation is people’s attitudes and behaviour, yet there is little reference to attitudes or behaviour in the civil service reform plan, even though they should be the primary consideration.
	There has been much attempted reform over the years, focusing on organisation and skills, but those leading change need to understand why people behave as they do. Unless they can change that, the job titles might change, but few will change how they work. Indeed, much of Whitehall is fatigued by reform. Many feel they have done all they can to embrace change but have become cynical and learned how to keep their heads down until the latest initiatives pass by. I think that Ministers refer to that as the “bias to inertia”—a prevalent attitude and a common behaviour that together militate against risk taking and undermine accountability.
	When we speak of accountability, it is not simply a question of forcing obedience to ministerial orders so that instructions are carried out more directly, or finding who to blame when things go wrong. Accountability is much more about trust: not just about trusting people to take responsibility for carrying out their tasks and using their judgment, but about those people in turn trusting that the problems they face will be taken seriously, now and in the future, by those to whom they are accountable. Accountability and trust depend on shared understanding—it is a two-way street. Within that framework, people become willing to take responsibility and to be held to account. And when things get difficult and mistakes are made, as always happens, openness and trust become even more essential if there is to be learning and improvement.
	This is the only way to improve accountability to Parliament and to citizens, and to avoid repeating mistakes. We need to analyse what accountability feels like in Whitehall today, given today’s intense pressures of the 24/7 media, freedom of information and more active Select Committees, and then to imagine what it should feel like. What, if any, change can be achieved unless we identify what attitudes and behaviour destroy trust? We need to identify those attitudes and develop a plan to change them. We do not have time to wait for attitudes to change. Far too many good people have got fed up with waiting, and they just leave. Also, far too much money is being wasted. As the Institute for Government pointed out this week, the spending challenge in the next Parliament will be much harder than in this one.
	Another point on which all four signatories to today’s motion agree is that these challenges cannot be fixed by Whitehall from within. That is not to disparage the present Whitehall leadership. No organisation facing this kind of challenge can change without external analysis that is both independent and, in this case, democratically accountable. The lack of such analysis is the reason other reforms have failed. A sustained change in attitudes and behaviour has to be initiated by a
	renewed, united and determined leadership of Ministers and officials that encourages mutual understanding and co-operation and is enthusiastic to learn from external scrutiny and analysis.
	This will mean Whitehall’s leaders listening and learning to develop new skills. Ministers and officials are so pressed by the immediate economic, political and international issues that they will surely need external support and scrutiny to achieve this. Of course, some will find this difficult to accept, but what is the alternative?
	The remit proposed in motion 36, endorsed by the Public Administration Committee and the Liaison Committee, concentrates on the key issues: accountability, trust and leadership. I am pleased that the proposed parliamentary commission commands widespread and respected support. Professor Lord Norton of Louth, a leading constitutional academic, told my Committee that he supports a “full-scale proper review”. The Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne of Madingley, said that such a review is “long overdue”. He also said that
	“the biggest single obstacle to progress in government”—
	was—
	“the question of organisational learning, in particular from experiences of failure.”
	He made the key point that
	“stories of failure... are the only powerful mechanism for learning.”
	Jonathan Powell, the former chief of staff to Tony Blair, told us that without a commission
	“we will lose opportunities to be better governed and to get more stuff done”.
	We understand why Ministers fear that it could be a distraction from implementing current policies and reform programmes, but without this wider review no civil service reform will be sustained.
	Some fear that this review will become too vast a project, but this is not another Fulton committee. Not only was Fulton allowed to take far too long, but the committee was not based in Parliament and so it became divorced from the reality of government, lacked parliamentary authority and had a flawed remit. In a brilliant “Yes Minister” act of sabotage, its remit denied Fulton the right to consider any aspect of the relationship between Ministers and officials. There is no vote on the commission today, but I hope that colleagues on both sides will endorse the view that the proposed parliamentary commission is not just a good idea, but Parliament’s duty. I hope they will join all those already pressing for this to be brought to a vote in the Lobby as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: May I suggest to Members that they take up to 10 minutes only?

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, of which I, too, am a member. May I take this opportunity to applaud him on his strong, intelligent leadership of the Committee? I strongly endorse the report’s conclusion, which is that there should be a parliamentary commission
	on the civil service. Different views will be taken on this, and I have a different view from many other members of the Committee. I am an unapologetic and unreconstructed statist—indeed, as a student I wrote a paper in praise of the French prefecture system, which is statism par excellence.
	As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, the report is substantial, and most of it is evidence. The evidence given to us was fascinating. It came from former Cabinet Secretaries, current heads of the civil service, academic historians, political commentators and, most importantly, trade union leaders. Listening to them all and asking them a range of questions was a fascinating experience.
	The report came to some conclusions—not recommendations, as such. First, it supports the Northcote-Trevelyan principles, established in 1854, on the political impartiality of the civil service. That is fundamental and I want us to retain it for the long-term. Secondly, the Haldane doctrine of ministerial accountability is supported, although it is questioned. That may be discussed by the commission, as and when it is established. I was one who was appalled when a Labour Minister in the previous Government chose to blame a civil servant in this Chamber. That was a break with tradition; it was shameful at the time and it caused some consternation, and I am glad to say that it has not been repeated. I hope we will continue to retain the principle of ministerial responsibility.
	I want to see the historical features of the civil service retained, although obviously we will look at every possible reform to improve it for the future. We should continue to recruit the brightest from the universities to be senior career civil servants, and we want both generalists and senior specialist professionals. I believe the Minister has a similar view to mine that generalists do have their place in the civil service. We do not just want technocrats; we want people who have a broad philosophical view of the world, who understand politics and economics, and who have some sense of history. We cannot have just scientists or just economists—especially not economists, and I say that as one myself.
	There is a range of views. Some think that the civil service should be entirely politicised, which is a view that I utterly rejected in Committee. We have now confirmed that we do not want to see the civil service politicised as it is in countries such as the United States of America. We have a unitary system of government; we do not have separation of powers or balance of powers. The civil service has to have power to speak truth to power—that private responsibility to advise Ministers.
	Some of our best Departments have made serious mistakes in recent years, so clearly there are things that are wrong, and I think I know why. The Treasury seemed to be stuffed full of monetarists—unfortunately, this was after my time at university—who had a particular view on how to run an economy, and they made some serious mistakes. When we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990, I predicted that it would fail, and sure enough it did. We might not have joined that mechanism had some civil servants in the Treasury said, “Ministers, this is a mistake.” If we had had some Keynesians in the Treasury, they might have said, “We have to retain currency flexibility for our economy, and if we don’t do that, we will be in severe danger.” Had someone said that, we might not have made that mistake. That decision led to the 1992 collapse, which destroyed
	the credibility of the Conservative Government at the time and led directly to the election of Labour in 1997. Some might like to claim credit for that, but it was, in fact, the collapse of the ERM and everything that went with it—the housing problems and so on—that led to political victory for my party.
	We need a range of views. When I was student of economics, one of our lecturers was a former Treasury civil servant, and he said that within the civil service or the Treasury, there was always someone working on the alternatives. For example, in the 1967 devaluation debate, we had on the one hand, the sound money people arguing for preserving the pound’s parity and, on the other hand, others working on an alternative devaluation proposal. Eventually devaluation happened, which was sensible. What was important, though, was the range of views, which were privately held within the civil service. Those views were not political; they were based on, among other things academic research.
	I wish to submit my own views, as and when the commission is established. I have already written a paper on what I think is wrong with the civil service and submitted it to a recent conference. Although the civil service is not politicised as such, it was driven in a particular direction after the 1970s. Those who had a critical view of neo-liberalism, monetarism and the markets were marginalised, and it was taken as holy writ within the civil service that the market was right and that we should devolve as much as possible to the private sector. I thought that was profoundly wrong then, and I still do now and would like to see it reversed.
	I want to see insourcing, not outsourcing. Outsourcing has been disruptive. It has reduced accountability and led to all sorts of failures, such as the failure in IT. Many of the IT catastrophes in the public sector come about because the civil service does not have the capacity to manage IT contracts. I would establish a public corporation for IT, where those changes to the way we run things would be done inside, not outside, the civil service. We would not have to give gigantic contracts to private sector companies, which then make mistakes and say, “Well, Ministers, if it is all wrong, would you like us to do it again?” They then get a second contract and make even more money, and the civil service is blamed for failures. Such a service should be in-house not out of house.
	Outsourcing has caused all sorts of problems. In a recent report, the National Audit Office said that there was a
	“crisis of confidence caused by some worrying examples of contractors not appearing to treat the public sector fairly, and of departments themselves not being on top of things.”
	That is precisely what I have described in relation to IT.
	There are so many details that one could go into. Some Departments have had serious problems, but I am reluctant to name names. However, the Department for Transport was in chaos over railway franchising; clearly, there were people involved who were not able to handle the situation. We had the west coast main line debacle. I understand that because of churn, those who had some vague understanding of franchising were quickly moved on, and there was nobody left to do the job properly. Keeping experienced staff—avoiding churn—is vital. That means not cuts at all costs, but making sure that we retain those civil servants with experience and skills rather than just reducing staffing come what may.
	The vast tax gap has been caused, at least in part, by savage cuts to personnel in HMRC. Everyone knows—I have said this in this Chamber many times—that one tax officer collects many times their own salary in additional tax, so why not put in place hundreds if not thousands more HMRC officials and collect the billions that remain uncollected? That would perhaps help to solve some of our financial problems.
	There are all sorts of problems that I want to address when I make my modest submission to the commission, when it is set up. There are issues that have to be addressed. I want to see the restoration of the strong big state that we had after the second world war, under which the lives of working people were transformed. A small state with privatisation and marketisation will, I think, bring no good to working people or the economy overall. I have a particular view, I want to put that view and I hope that others will think likewise.

Alan Beith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on bringing this matter forward so determinedly. Indeed, I am glad that the debate will be responded to by a Minister who I know to be a reforming Minister, but we still feel he needs to raise his reforming game from the specific and valuable things that he has been doing to deal with a wider concept of the future of the civil service. We have a civil service with excellent qualities, and I will refer to some of them in a moment, but as the Government themselves have said, we want a
	“world-class, 21st Century Civil Service capable of delivering”
	future
	“Government’s priorities and the best public services.”
	When the Public Administration Committee produced its report, the Liaison Committee wanted to support its conclusions but also to bring together several Select Committees’ experience of failings in the system. That led us to question the Prime Minister last September, at one of our thrice-yearly sessions with him, about the civil service. He responded well on specific matters, but I am still not at all convinced that he grasped the fundamental problem that the civil service is now facing very different circumstances, and we need to assess how far it can change the way it does things without losing some of its essential features.
	We published a short report that highlighted some of the problem areas, such as the electronic monitoring of offenders, the west coast main line franchise and universal credit, where there had been serious implementation problems. We also gave praise where it was due, for example for the success of the Olympic and Paralympic games organisation. We concluded that there was significant evidence that the civil service is not equipped to support consistent contract management and tends to be driven by short-term pressures rather than long-term value for money for the taxpayer. We were unconvinced that the Government’s civil service reform plan for Whitehall is based on a strategic consideration of the future of the civil service. We gave our support to the idea of a parliamentary commission, jointly involving both Houses.
	The Government responded to our report earlier this week and published their response in time for this debate. They deal with all our specific points, but still do not, I think, grasp the overall point. They say
	“the Government does not agree that these examples indicate a wider failure, nor suggest that there is any systemic problem of trust and honesty in the critical relationship between Ministers and officials.”
	However, the Institute for Government recently published a report saying that there is a “lack of collective leadership” at the centre and that “short-termism” is weakening Whitehall’s ability to plan ahead, while there is
	“no co-ordinating…narrative for the Civil Service to lock into”,
	and although:
	“Leaders of reform report strong Prime Ministerial support for civil service reform in private...this has little visibility within Whitehall.”
	The argument that the Prime Minister used was that a parliamentary commission could displace current reform efforts, which are urgently needed. If that view ever had any significance, it does not in the last year of this Parliament, when so many of the Government’s reform initiatives have already been introduced. We ought now to be considering what we can bequeath to the next Parliament. We in the Select Committees inherited a significant bequest as a result of the Wright Committee’s work and, in many ways, we would like the next Parliament to inherit some worthwhile things, including a clear concept of how to develop the civil service to meet modern needs. A joint commission would make that possible.
	The other place has a ready supply of former Cabinet Secretaries, people who have run large private and public sector organisations and people who have political experience, who can join with those who have recent and immediate experience in this House in analysing what is needed and making proposals.

Mark Harper: I have studied the motion on the Commons Order Paper and the proposed names of Members of this House. On the point about membership, I was a little worried, given the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for reform, that he seemed to suggest that the Members of the House of Lords who should serve on the commission would be former Cabinet Secretaries. Is that a way to get reform or to ensure that reform does not happen?

Alan Beith: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My list was much longer than that. It included people with experience in the private sector and—as I was about to say but did not due to the shortage of time—in the armed forces.

Bernard Jenkin: If the commission were chaired by a Cross Bencher in the other place, there would be no space on the committee for a former Cabinet Secretary.

Alan Beith: I suppose I ought also to say that it would be an amendable motion in any event. Before I was elected to the House, I used to give university lectures about the civil service at the time of the Fulton report. My lecture notes would be of little use today as so much has changed. The Fulton report was itself trying to catch up with change, but so much has happened since then. The civil service is now far less an administrator of services and much more a buyer of services. Back-office outsourcing has been a major development. The Minister knows that I have some concerns that we will not have a
	footprint of the civil service in the smaller towns and communities around the country if we do not manage that carefully to take advantage of good people who are available, as in my own constituency.
	The civil service can no longer be treated as a protected environment where private sector disciplines of personal responsibility, value for money and management of risk have no place. Much policy making is now international—in the European Union, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations. We are a less centralised state, at least in Scotland, Wales and London, with some devolution to cities and combined local authorities. Departments cannot continue to operate as sole owners of policy, living in separate silos, when so many of the problems we have to address—crime prevention, public health and skills for employment, to name just three—can be solved only on a cross-departmental basis. This means that money needs to be spent in one Department when the consequent savings will be earned in another Department. Money spent dealing with alcohol problems will save money in prison places, for example. Our system is not designed to accommodate such decisions.
	The Prime Minister’s office expects to be much more closely involved in many areas of policy, and questioning in the Liaison Committee has been developed to get at that and establish just what the Prime Minister’s office is doing when it has a guiding role—some would say an interfering role—in policy. Perhaps that is an unfortunately pejorative term. Many would say that it is right that the Prime Minister exercises a significant influence on policy development, but it has made a different character of work in at least some Departments.
	The Treasury’s role is nowadays quite often one of encouraging specific expenditure as well as blocking other expenditure—a more active role than it sometimes played in the past. Select Committee scrutiny has pulled back the veil of ministerial responsibility and rightly opened up much more what actually happened when decisions were taken. Coalition Government has required new procedures to be developed, and Ministers are as impatient as ever to deliver policy change. The Government have sought to accommodate that through the idea of extended ministerial offices, but I am still unclear whether any Department has followed the Cabinet Office with an extended ministerial office. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
	Amidst all this there are key features of the British civil service that most of us are very anxious to keep, including political impartiality—a civil service that can serve any Government—high ethical standards and the ability to attract people of the highest ability. Resolving these things is not a simple matter. It needs some careful thought. We need to hand on to the next Parliament a well-thought-out understanding of the future of our civil service and how it can be achieved.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this hugely important debate, even if it is taking place in the twilight hour of a Thursday afternoon. I also congratulate the Minister for the Cabinet Office on undertaking important reforms, and we should wish him well across the House. I welcome the work that has been done by bodies such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Institute for Government to try
	to tackle some of the complex issues that we face. I am delighted by today’s launch of GovernUp, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on their hard work. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex on his Committee’s important cross-party work, as well as on the proposition that we should have a commission. My view on such things is that we should let a thousand flowers bloom given that, as there are so many complex issues, every new idea will add value.
	To get to the meat of the debate, wherever we sit in the House the challenge that faces us all in an age of austerity is how we maximise the value of constrained expenditure to meet the pressing and ever-growing needs of our constituents. That interest in best value crosses political divides and, I hope, unites Members on both sides of the House. If we are to achieve that, however, radical transformation is essential, and that, too, should be a shared objective. Bringing about such transformation is a huge challenge that requires absolute commitment and will take a long time, so we need to work together across the House so that the vital reforms that are needed to deliver more effective and efficient government are taken out of crude party politics, which is why the work that is being done by the Public Administration Committee and in other forums is important. We need to build a cross-party consensus on reform that can be delivered across electoral cycles.
	I want to talk about three issues, although I could talk about more: the capability of the civil service; the organisation of Government in managing and delivering projects and programmes; and responsibility and accountability to Parliament and the taxpayer for services and projects delivered. First, on capability, I think that we all agree that the civil service recruits the brightest and the best, and people who are committed to public service, yet all too often the Public Accounts Committee finds that they fail to deliver major projects and vital services efficiently. We find that they too often cannot manage major business transformation, such as universal credit, and that they waste money on big projects. For example, with the aircraft carrier project, which has spanned Governments of both parties, the original proposal was for two aircraft and delivery in 2016 at a cost of £3.65 billion, but now, if we are lucky, it will involve one aircraft by 2020 at a cost of £6 billion. All too often, people working for the Government liberally use other people’s money—taxpayers’ money—in a way that they would never use their own, and our Committee has seen the NHS and BBC pay-offs as cases in point.
	Although people come into government with the best of motives and abilities, they are not trained in the skills that they need to carry out the job that is required of them today, so they do not have commercial, project management, financial and IT skills that we need in a modern civil service. My Committee has seen many examples of things going wrong, most recently with the letting of the interpreter contract by the Ministry of Justice and the contract for offshore power transmission to the grid.

Kelvin Hopkins: Managing contracts is the issue, because if less was contracted out and more was done in house, some of those problems might be overcome.

Margaret Hodge: I know where my hon. Friend is coming from, but we need the capability in government effectively to manage contracts whenever and by whomever they are delivered. There is a legacy in the civil service of focusing on policy, which is valued, but not implementation, which is vital, so we must challenge that culture.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Was the right hon. Lady as impressed as I was by Michael Spurr, the new head of the National Offender Management Service, who started his career as a prison officer, has front-line experience and is now chief executive? He was a breath of fresh air when he appeared before our Committee, because he really focused on what we have to do to deliver good public services.

Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree, and that takes me very neatly to my next point. Promotion in the civil service is all too often about moving to a job in another area, rather than focusing on one job and seeing it through to the end. I think that the hon. Lady would agree that the worst example the Committee has seen was the attempt to implement the new FiReControl policy, for which we saw 10 senior responsible officers in a matter of five years. It is no wonder the project went horribly wrong.
	I think that there is still a culture in the civil service of being hostile to outsiders, rather than embracing the talents that can be brought in from all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, which I think are often seen as a threat. When I was a Minister, I brought three incredibly talented women into the Department for Education to try to implement policies. None of them now works anywhere in Government, even though they could contribute to policy implementation.
	I also think that too often the civil service and Government are—dare I say it?— exploited by consultants. My Committee will shortly be looking at the sale of Royal Mail, which might be just the last in a line of examples of that. I recognise that some steps are being taken, such as the development of the Major Projects Authority and the academy for training in project management. They are all steps in the right direction, but they are not enough and they are not happening fast enough.
	Secondly, Government are just poorly organised for delivering what is wanted and needed. Government still work in silos, which always leads to unintended consequences. To take a current example, local authorities have had massive cuts, which inevitably has an impact on their social care expenditure. At the same time, we have a health policy that is trying to get people out of hospitals and into the community, but without any money to support it.
	Working in silos leads to a failure to learn from mistakes, with one Department simply replicating the mistakes made by another. The Committee has seen that in the mistakes made during the early implementation of the private finance initiative, for example. If we look at how the contracts for energy have been implemented, we see that lots of those errors have been duplicated in the current contracts that have been signed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
	There is a failure at the centre to recognise the importance of a strong centre. My Committee has just received a letter from Sir Bob Kerslake, Nicholas Macpherson
	and Richard Heaton. We had written to them about the importance of having a strong centre. I will quote a few lines from their letter:
	“Your Committee urges the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to take a strong strategic lead, as the Government’s corporate centre, in civil service reform and associated issues… However, the… central direction and integration that you appear to recommend does not reflect the model that this government and previous governments have operated.”
	I do not know whether that is true. I have asked the Minister whether he agrees.
	The letter goes on to state that
	“the Centre does not and cannot take decisions or set a strong direction on every item of the £720 billion of public expenditure… the government machine is not like a holding company dominating its subsidiaries from a corporate centre.”
	Well, I do not know what business of that magnitude would not have a strong centre and would wash its hands of its responsibility for the performance of its constituent parts. Since when have we, as politicians, signed up to the mantra? It is almost like claiming that there is no such thing as Government; only Departments with their Secretaries of State. Reform, if it is to ensure that coherence, efficiency and effectiveness are delivered across Government, must mean that we have strong central direction and much better integration than we currently enjoy.

Alan Beith: I agree with the point the right hon. Lady is making. It comes back to what I was saying about the role of the Prime Minister’s office, which often seems to get involved in specific policies because they are politically significant, rather than to exert the central management she describes.

Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree with that comment.
	Finally, I want to talk about the conventions on responsibilities and accountabilities within the civil service and between civil servants and Ministers. The system is no longer working, and we need to rethink it. That is the extent of the complexity of the issues we are confronting. We need to deliver this in a sustainable way that will work across the political parties. The current position is frustrating for Ministers and for civil servants. We can look at the situation at the Ministry of Justice and at the Department for Work and Pensions, where I think there is a reluctance to speak truth to power, or at the Home Office, with the experience regarding the UK Borders Agency and the frustrations felt by Ministers.
	As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the doctrine of ministerial accountability is constructed on a basic lie. If Ministers are to be held accountable for the work of their civil servants, it is nonsensical that they can neither hire nor fire them. If we do not challenge that basic lie, we will never achieve the effective changes that we require.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Lady might be surprised to know that when I addressed 200 civil servants at lunchtime today and asked how many had read the Haldane memorandum, which remains the absolute basis of the doctrine of ministerial accountability and should affect every one of their working lives, no one put their hand up. Does that not suggest that we need to rework the
	whole concept of accountability into the education of civil servants so that they understand why they are accountable?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman has had a very telling experience, and I agree with him.
	Right across today’s world, not just in Government but in every sphere of life, better accountability and more transparency should be the order of the day, and that must feed into the way that we govern ourselves and are governed. Analysing the fact that we have a problem is much easier then finding a sustainable solution over time.
	In this short contribution, I have been able only to skim the surface of some very tough issues. We need a radical overhaul of how we do Government. We need cross-party co-operation if we are to make progress. We know that we have the brightest and the best working for us in Government and the civil service, and we need to work with them to ensure that between us we properly serve the people in whose name we are privileged to govern.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate that Mr Deputy Speaker advised the House that if everybody takes approximately 10 minutes for their speeches, then everyone who has indicated that they wish to speak will have an opportunity to do so. The arithmetic has changed a little since he made that pronouncement. If everybody who has indicated that they wish to speak takes approximately seven minutes, all their colleagues will have an opportunity to speak.

Nick Herbert: In 2010, when I accepted an invitation to join the Government of Britain, to coin a phrase, I found myself as a Minister in two Departments—the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. My experience was precisely that outlined by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as regards the problems of silo Departments. They were two Departments created from one, and they found it very difficult to co-operate to address holistically the problems that clearly needed to be addressed; how to tackle crime, at source, at the earliest possible stage. Just as people were trying to deal with those problems in a joined-up manner on the ground, the Departments had been split nationally.
	It was a salutary experience. When I walked into the Ministry of Justice for the first time, I was shown the lifts by my private secretary. The MOJ had a more intelligent allocation of lifts than the Home Office: you indicated the floor you wanted to go to and the right lift would arrive for you. My private secretary told me that it was possible to override the programme in the event of a Division so that a lift would immediately arrive for me, the Minister. I tried this out on what I thought would be a quiet afternoon. The lift hurtled to my floor, and a sign on it said, “This lift is under ministerial control.” The doors opened, and out stepped the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who questioned whether the lift was indeed under his control. If so, it was about the only thing there that was under ministerial control.
	The serious point I want to make is that, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Barking have said, although set by an historical doctrine, questions of accountability arise today. If, in the mid-19th century, a form of permanent government was effectively created, that is fine when that permanent government happens to do things in the way that accountable Ministers like and that is satisfactory, and when it happens to be performing well. The problem comes when that permanent government does not perform well. Accountability then falls on Ministers who have little ability to wrest improvements from the system.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex suggested, the failures do not need to be rehearsed. As the right hon. Member for Barking said, there have clearly been major and costly project failures. When this Government came to power, only a third of major projects were running to time and to budget, and the problems have persisted. There are issues with skills, given the commissioning failures we have seen. There is also the issue of poor financial control. It is a paradox that in our centralised state the willingness of the centre to exercise careful financial control over Departments is actually very limited. The Treasury does not wish to exercise that detailed financial management or scrutiny, and it shows. All these things often lead to poor value for money, a waste of resources and poor outcomes. It is the weakest in our society who pay the price, but we all pay a price through higher taxation. I think it is common ground that these issues need to be addressed.
	Every time a Government come to power, they arrive believing that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the arrival of an enlightened Government with a different set of political objectives, and that all the problems are the fault of the outgoing Government. That was certainly the case in 1997 and in 2010, when most Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office was one of the notable exceptions, and it shows—had little experience of government. Soon the scales drop from Ministers’ eyes as they realise that not all the problems can be laid at the political door—the door of the Opposition—and that there are systemic problems.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) said, we have an opportunity for forging a cross-party agreement about the changes that need to be made. Why? Because, for the first time since the second world war, every party has had recent experience of being in government and understands that while the political debate goes on, there are issues that we need to address. That is why I am pleased today to have launched GovernUp with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), a non-party project with cross-party support. I am delighted that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a member of the advisory board. The board also includes the Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne; Lord Bichard, a former permanent secretary; Lord Birt and Baroness Lane-Fox—all Cross-Bench peers with important experience to bring.
	Over the course of the next year the project will do important research in the areas of accountability, skills and international comparisons—work that needs to be done. It will not do that work alone, or simply be an isolated research project, but will draw on the experience
	of former Ministers, in this place and outside, and of civil servants, whom we wish to appoint to a reference panel. We have secured agreement to that proposal from the leadership of the civil service and the Minister.
	That approach will be evidence-led, will involve detailed and careful research, will be open, involving outside bodies, will involve dialogue with the civil service itself and will draw on the experience of parliamentarians in both Houses. I want to suggest that that is a better approach than that of a parliamentary commission. I have grave doubts about the capability of a parliamentary commission to do what is necessary. Indeed, I think that the concept of a parliamentary commission—an old-fashioned, inquisitorial model—is entirely wrong, quite apart from the question of who would be on it. The real question is whether it is a body that looks backwards of forwards: do its members wish to be a part of it because they think that proposals for civil service reform are dangerous and wrong, or are they looking forward to addressing the challenges that face this country and the kind of system we need to develop? The danger of the commission as currently constituted, with a judge leading it, is that it would be the worst kind of backward-looking and reactionary body, so I do not support the proposal.
	Although the Public Administration Committee report has some interesting content, I think it is evidence of some of the weaknesses of a parliamentary approach. After months of deliberation and evidence-taking, what is the report’s conclusion? It is that there needs to be an inquiry. Where are the detailed recommendations? Where is the detailed analysis and evidence of the kind of change we need? We have only a year left and I believe that now is the time to do the careful work.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the concept, but the fact is that there are enormously wide ranges of views about the civil service. A conclusion would not have been consensual: there would have been serious division among members of the Select Committee and we would have gotten nowhere. A parliamentary commission could do that job.

Nick Herbert: I find great difficulty in understanding how a cross-party Select Committee would find it impossible to come to a conclusion, but a parliamentary commission would not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain that.

Bernard Jenkin: Why does my right hon. Friend think that the think-tank he has set up would be any more objective than a parliamentary commission? Indeed, how would it be more objective when it has been sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet Secretary and the civil service—the very thing he seeks to reform?

Nick Herbert: I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that we should let a thousand flowers bloom. Many will wish to do work in this area, but I doubt very much that the GovernUp initiative, which I and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) have set up, is sanctioned by the leaders of the civil service. What I specifically said was that they had agreed that civil servants could perhaps sit on a reference panel. That does not mean that they would have control over any of the body’s work. My argument is that we now need to do the work. It is the detailed research and
	analysis that we need to do; we do not need political grandstanding or an inquisitorial approach. That is why I think that the proposed parliamentary commission would be wrong.
	I believe that the narrative of Whitehall wars, whereby Ministers are at loggerheads with civil servants, is wrong and misplaced. There is plenty of evidence that civil servants themselves seek change. Indeed, the Public Administration Committee report notes that Lord O’Donnell, the previous Cabinet Secretary, said in his evidence that
	“if you really want to improve public sector outcomes, I think there is a radical transformation necessary.”
	It seems to me, therefore, that the question is not whether change is necessary, but what is the nature of the change and who will make the case for it? Do we have a system that is equal to the challenges facing this country, with rising demand for services, the need to adjust to further spending reductions in the next Parliament and in the future, and the fact that we face ever greater international competition? All parties need to understand that Government reform is as significant as, and essential for, public service reform. That is why this is such an important issue.

Nick Raynsford: May I at the outset draw attention to a non-pecuniary interest? I chair the Centre for Public Scrutiny. I think it is right that that should be placed on the record before I make my comments.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this debate and I strongly support his Committee’s recommendation for a parliamentary commission on the civil service. I listened carefully to the views of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I do not wish him ill with his initiative, but I cannot see how a think-tank set up in the spirit of letting a thousand flowers bloom will be able to produce an authoritative report that carries the weight necessary to lay the foundations for the future of our Government and civil service for decades to come. Frankly, it is a distraction. I note that the Government, in their grounds for rejecting the PASC recommendations, have said that they do not see the need for any more analysis or evidence gathering, but want action. If the Government welcome this initiative, I am not quite sure why they believe that evidence is not necessary, but are happy for this particular think-tank to gather evidence.
	Few people would dispute the fact that our system of government faces huge challenges, partly because public confidence, which was badly damaged by the parliamentary expenses scandal, remains fragile, but equally because people are worried about the series of well-documented failures of the current Government and previous ones. The Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), has highlighted a couple or three examples, and Ivor Crewe and Anthony King’s book, “The Blunders of our Governments”, provides much more documentation.
	All that is reflected not only in negative perceptions of the system of government, but in evidence of increased tension between Ministers and civil servants. As the PASC report demonstrates, there is too much evidence
	of a blame culture, with Ministers seeking to evade responsibility for their failings by blaming civil servants and civil servants responding by showing a less-than-eager appetite for implementing policies they believe are inept or driven by party political motivation. Those serious and corrosive problems need to be addressed and dealt with, and we must have an authoritative group of people who are genuinely seen as impartial and as seeking a serious long-term solution to the kind of tensions that, sadly, are all too rife.
	We know only too well that the architecture of our system of government—based on the doctrines of civil service impartiality and ministerial accountability to Parliament—evolved in a very different world, when the scale and nature of the civil service and the responsibilities for which Ministers were held accountable were very different from today’s, and when the Government had time to reflect and discuss collectively how best to respond, rather than being driven remorselessly by the demands of 24/7 media, as they are today. All that suggests that we need a proper, strategic cross-party assessment of how those doctrines should evolve or be changed to meet today’s different circumstances. That is precisely why I strongly support the idea of a parliamentary commission.
	As the proposal for a parliamentary commission has received the backing of not only the Public Administration Committee but the Liaison Committee, I am surprised that the Government are so resistant. Frankly, when I read the Government’s reasons, my surprise turns to incredulity. The Government’s alternative, which is offered as an excuse for rejecting the idea of a commission, is not just inadequate, but in some respects counter-productive. Essentially, the Government case is that their civil service reform programme is sufficient, and that a commission would effectively be a distraction.
	The first problem with that analysis is that the Government’s approach is neither strategic nor coherent. It has been well described as comprising a number of disjointed initiatives, some of which might be very productive, but some of which will not. The second problem is that the Government’s response is partial, and will not generate the cross-party consensus that is vital for any truly workable reform. The third problem is that the Government’s approach totally fails to address some of the key problems underlying the current negative perceptions of the system of government.
	To give just one example, in one of the most highly centralised systems of government in the world, we have a serious problem of overload on Ministers, with far too many relatively minor issues being decided by central Government, rather than devolved to the lower tiers of government that are far better placed to handle them. One consequence is that there are too many Ministers, as the PASC report points out. Against that background, it is astonishing that a Government who used to proclaim their localist credentials—I note that they are rather tarnished these days—are simply not, as part of their civil service reform agenda, considering how to reduce overload on central Government through devolving powers that are more appropriately discharged elsewhere. The bizarre consequence is that although there is a clear objective to reduce the size of the civil service, the number of Ministers is not falling and the number of special advisers is growing, contrary to what the governing parties aspired to before they came into power.
	I mentioned that some of the approaches in the Government’s civil service reform plan might be counter-productive. One example is the attempt to increase political influence over civil service appointments. I wholly concur with the views of Lord Hennessy, perhaps the foremost historian of 20th-century British government, who described the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms as
	“the greatest single governing gift of the nineteenth to the twentieth century: a politically disinterested and permanent Civil Service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.
	By contrast, the viability of the permanent civil service has now been called into question, against the background of an extraordinarily high turnover of permanent secretaries and the hollowing out of expertise from several Departments, which threatens their collective memory and experience, and leaves them increasingly dependent on external sources of advice, many of which will have partial, if not party political, agendas.
	I have absolutely no doubt that the problems that afflict our system of government, which undermine trust between civil servants and Ministers, which contribute to ill-thought-out and poorly implemented policies and which leave the public increasingly sceptical about our ability to give them the good governance that they rightly expect, will persist and will not be remedied by the Government’s reform programme or the proposed think-tank. Some day—I hope that it is not too far away—Parliament will have to flex its muscles and insist on a full cross-party parliamentary commission to address the issue properly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have tried the polite and honourable approach, but it has not worked, so I have to impose a formal time limit of five minutes.

Angie Bray: The civil service is a critical national institution and part of the very fabric of politics. Since the 19th century, our administrative system has been based on the model of a politically impartial bureaucracy that serves the political masters of the day. One hundred and fifty years since Northcote and Trevelyan’s report, it is our duty to question whether the system is fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For that reason, I welcome the chance to debate the question of civil service reform and to put on the record my support for the Government’s programme, which was launched one and three quarter years ago.
	I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General when the Government’s programme was formulated. It was painstakingly and carefully developed through consultation with civil servants, including the current leadership of the civil service. Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood approved every line of the reform plan, and the actions were drawn from suggestions made by civil servants, from permanent secretaries right down the hierarchy.
	I speak as a Back Bencher with no huge experience of governance, other than in my former role as a PPS, but my overriding sense is that we need to get on with the reforms because they are badly needed. Many of us
	have understandably been appalled by failures such as that over the west coast main line franchise. It is clear that there are serious lessons to be learned. The Government must drive ahead with their programme to improve the commercial and contract management skills of the civil service. We also need to improve the way in which major projects are delivered. The appointment of John Manzoni, formerly of BP, is a significant boost to the Government’s Major Projects Authority. Taxpayers expect every pound that is spent on such projects to be carefully checked and managed. The Government must therefore push ahead with their reforms to ensure that projects are scrutinised properly.
	As the Minister reported in June last year, the Government have not yet achieved the reforms that they want, but a great deal has been done in some areas. Anyone who has accessed the Government’s new website will have been impressed by this country’s online offering. The programme to move 25 key public services online will make a material difference to my constituents when they apply for a new driving licence or an apprenticeship.
	One key proposal in the reforms is that Ministers should have a greater say over the appointments of the most senior civil servants in their Departments. Surely, it is not unreasonable and is, indeed, sensible that there should be some ministerial choice over the people who play such a key role. I am aware that the concern has been expressed that such a change would or could lead to the politicisation of the civil service. I think that such worries are misplaced. As I understand it, the proposal is that all candidates will have to convince an independent panel that they have the requisite merit for the role. The panel, which will be overseen by the Civil Service Commission, will ensure that politics plays no part in their selection for consideration.
	This modest change will instead ensure that the most senior civil servants are in tune with the agreed policies of their Department, as well as with the direction of travel towards achieving the desired outcome and with policy implementation. I understand that. My time working with the Cabinet Office demonstrated how important it is that Ministers and their civil servants work together.
	We have heard proposals for this place to support a parliamentary commission on the future of the civil service. At one level I thoroughly understand the desire to have another look at things, but Ministers and officials are not short of advice on how to reform Whitehall. There are endless reports—some more radical, some less radical—all advocating different elements of reform: historians, political scientists, Select Committees, august think-tanks, retired permanent secretaries, former Ministers, and a host of other pundits have thrown their suggestions into the mix. The danger is not a lack of advice but rather an excess, and as I have made clear, the Government’s reform plan drew heavily on suggestions from civil servants about how best to change things.
	Without doubt, a parliamentary commission would delay the Government’s reforms. Indeed, the commission is a suggestion of which Sir Humphrey himself would have been proud. I urge the Government to press ahead with their important programme.

John Healey: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). I welcome this debate on the reform of the civil service, and congratulate the
	hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing it. I do not think, however, that his proposal for a parliamentary commission at this stage of the Parliament is the answer, and had the House debated that proposal 12 months after the previous election, rather than 12 months before the next one, the case may have been stronger. I did agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there is more on which we agree than disagree, and this is a unique opportunity for us to start to forge a strong, cross-party consensus on the analysis of the problems, and the conclusions about changes that must be made to our system of British government if we are to do right by British taxpayers and those who depend on services.
	In some ways, and for several reasons, I feel pretty confident about that. First, I was struck by the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s recent description of the civil service leadership as having a “bias to inertia”. I am not prone to quoting Tony Blair, but that echoed a comment he made in his book when he stated:
	“As I discovered early on, the problem with the traditional Civil Service was not obstruction but inertia.”
	The second reason for being confident about the potential for a cross-party, wider consensus is that excellent work has been done by think-tanks such as the Institute for Government, the Institute for Public Policy Research, the First Division Association, and the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. A lot of that tends to be about the nitty-gritty weaknesses of government—the wiring, perhaps—and there is need for a much bigger view. Thirdly, for the first time since the second world war, all three major parties include people with recent or current experience of government, and all are looking forward to a closely contested election next May. We therefore have the potential and a unique opportunity to forge a consensus on how and why we need to change the civil service.
	Despite its strengths, the civil service is still designed and run principally on a system that was established in the mid-1850s, but it is now simply not equal to the task given the changes and challenges of a modern society. In the time available I will mention four dimensions to the debate that I think are overlooked, but that I consider to be central. First, we cannot talk sensibly about civil service reform—or the civil service at all—without recognising the distinctions between policy and delivery staff, and between the 20,000 core policy officials or the 50,000 Whitehall-based staff, and more than 300,000 people who work in agencies and bodies, often outside London. Secondly, we cannot talk sensibly about better government if we look only at the civil service, because the questions are just as much about politicians as they are about civil servants: the capacity and culture of Ministers, the role of advisers, the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny, the tyranny of short-termism, and 24-hour media.
	I know when I was at my best as a Minister and when I was at my worst. When I was at my best I had a complex but clearly defined challenge. I had authority from the top to lead, including across Departments, and I had a team of good civil servants, some of whom were policy and some of whom were operations. I was at my worst when I came into sub-committees of the Cabinet with my lines to take from the Department and very little preparation or knowledge beforehand.
	Thirdly, we cannot talk sensibly about a modern system of government if we do not get to grips with what the powers, roles and responsibilities should be at the centre, and what would work much better locally. Fourthly, we cannot talk sensibly about civil service reform if we do not have an accurate appreciation of civil service staff. It is not just their commitment to public service and the values of integrity and incorruptibility. There are only 1,900 fast streamers out of more than 400,000 civil servants. This time last year there were only 3,695 senior civil servants, yet still they do a dedicated, committed job with a strong sense of public service.
	I was proud that one of the first reforms of the previous Labour Government was to reintroduce trade union rights at GCHQ. Trade unions have a part to play, speaking up on behalf of staff and offering views on the sort of change we need in the civil service, just as they do in many of Britain’s best and leading companies.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We in this House can make whatever decisions we like, but unless the machinery of government is fit for purpose we will not achieve the policy outcomes we desire and we will not achieve value for money for the taxpayer. It is therefore very important that we come together and debate the future of the civil service to ensure that our machinery of government is fit for purpose in the 21st century.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He is delivering a quiet revolution and is one of the unsung heroes of the Government. Dare I suggest that the kind of the leadership we are getting from the top of Government in driving change is far more effective than any initiative, such as a commission, think-tank or anything else? He is driving change from the top and showing real leadership.
	As the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) told us, we on the Public Accounts Committee are witnesses to, and becoming experts in, government failure. It is a bit like “Groundhog Day”: over and again we see the same reasons for that failure. She has described some of those reasons today: poor skills and a failure to have consistent management and senior responsible owners who see projects through from start to finish. We need real accountability in the system. The Committee found that only a third of big projects are delivered on time and to budget. We see the same failings over and again, and there is no excuse for that. The machinery of government should learn from what works and what does not.
	I welcome the introduction of the Major Projects Authority. It has started to do a good job to improve performance, but I think it could a lot more. I have a plea for my right hon. Friend the Minister: we would like see another performance review of major projects and I would like it to be as candid as possible. Departments need to be put on notice when they fail to deliver what the Government expect of them. In particular, I would like to know what is happening to deliver items in the national infrastructure plan. The Major Projects Authority can play a positive role in holding Departments to account for delivery.
	Skills are hugely important. I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that the culture in the civil service puts too much emphasis on rewarding
	people who pursue policies and interests rather than commercial skills. That reflects the culture of a civil service that was borne out of a 19th approach to government administration. Today, the emphasis is not on government administration, but on delivering services to the public, often through third parties. We therefore need to reward commercial skills, not focus on policy. That will require behavioural and cultural change throughout the civil service. Ministers can only do so much: those values need to be adopted by those at the top of the civil service.
	I welcome the Minister’s efforts to deliver the Government’s capabilities plan to address skills shortages, but over and again we see that these values are not being adopted throughout government. Every permanent secretary needs to be a champion of ensuring that those behaviours are rewarded. If we do not, we will see poor value for money for the taxpayer. We have already seen that when Departments are not comfortable with managing commercial contracts, they tend to go with one supplier. That is creating new private sector monopolies funded by the taxpayer, which is bad for performance and bad for accountability. We need to ensure that our civil servants have the skills that will give them the confidence to manage contracts properly; otherwise those monopolies will get bigger and bigger. Let us have more rewards for civil servants who are actively grasping commercial challenges and actively pushing competition. There have been some good examples of that.
	As I said during the speech of the right hon. Member for Barking, it was refreshing to see a prison officer reach the top of the offender management service, and to note the perspective he brought to that position. We are always encountering permanent secretaries who talk in a policy-wonkish way, but I am talking about real service delivery and real operational performance. Someone who becomes a chief executive after being a prison officer working on the front line will understand the whole business. He will know where the bodies are buried, and what needs to be changed. That is so much more effective: let us see more of it, please.
	We have become used to very poor management of transport projects, but the senior responsible owner of the Thameslink project was the same person throughout. Let us see more of that as well.
	I do not think that we need a commission. I think that we have seen enough government failure on the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Committee. We know what is wrong; let us just get on with fixing it—and my right hon. Friend will.

Andrew Miller: I congratulate the Public Administration Committee The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is absolutely right: we need behavioural and cultural change to be at the heart of the system. Successive Governments have argued in circles about the structure of government—about which bit belongs where, and all the rest of it—and have never come up with the perfect structure, simply because there is no perfect structure. Let us take the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Where does the science bit belong, where does the sport bit belong, where does the culture and museums bit belong? The arguments are enormously difficult, and no one will ever come up with a perfect solution.
	It is blindingly obvious that there must be a much better porous membrane between the structures of Departments to make things work, but there are massive cultural obstacles in the way of that. During the 1997 Parliament, I did some work for the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the delivery of technology. The paper that I produced for him pointed out that the problem was not about the technology itself, but about the people and the business processes. For far too long, we have been stuck in the rut of saying “We do it this way because we do it this way.” In case after case, I was able to demonstrate that a fundamental shift in the way in which the business processes operate will produce better efficiencies, better productivity, and—most important of all, as the hon. Member for Thurrock observed—better services for the people whom we are here to represent.
	I think that the arguments for having a good look at the structure and the mechanisms that operate are not just philosophical arguments but practical arguments that matter a great deal to the people whom we represent. The way in which we should do that is a matter of debate. My Select Committee recently undertook some work on horizon scanning, which is covered by the Minister’s Department. We heard some very fine evidence from Jon Day, who leads that work for the Government, and who described very clearly the problems of silo government and how it can be broken down. I am sure that that evidence will feature when we write our report, but it is already in the public domain.
	A number of Members have talked about the problems of contract management. That, too, has been a massive problem within the system. We need a professional contract management system that is fit for purpose and very few Departments can claim they have cracked that problem.
	I conclude, contrary to my very good friend my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), that the place to do this work is inside the House. I agree with the Public Administration Committee. We need the practical experience Members of Parliament bring to this debate: knowledge of what is missing from the delivery of services to their constituents and knowledge of the practical problems of dealing with the complex structures within government. That is where Members of Parliament from both Houses can contribute significantly to the debate.
	These are not issues that will necessarily cause any rift between the parties because I think there is a genuine desire to improve the business processes and the way in which the civil service relates to us, the Government and the people we represent. I do not see this creating a great divide, therefore, and I do not think the Government should be worried that it will slow their reform programme at all. This can happen in parallel, and I urge the Secretary of State to think about how we can make that happen and deliver a profoundly important report by the PASC.

Jonathan Ashworth: This has been an extremely good debate, with exceptional speeches from all Members who have contributed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing the debate. His speech was very thoughtful, and in “Truth to power” his Committee has produced a weighty, detailed report that must be taken seriously.
	I hope in my remarks to give him a bit of guidance about what the Labour Front Bench thinks of his report’s recommendations.
	Our deliberations have also benefited from recent reports from the Liaison Committee and outside bodies such as the Institute for Government. In addition, today my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) have launched GovernUp, which is described as an independent cross-party project
	“to consider the far-reaching reforms needed in Whitehall and beyond to enable more effective and efficient government.”
	Based on the thoughtful speeches of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, we look forward to GovernUp’s research and recommendations with some eagerness.
	We have benefited from many former senior Ministers’ insights this afternoon. I am not a former Minister, but I am a former special adviser and had the privilege of working closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne. In my time in government, I found the civil servants who supported Ministers on policy advice to be wholly dedicated, impartial and exceptional men and women. I think sometimes we should be careful in debates such as this not to reinforce the stereotypes of civil servants as faceless bureaucrats. Thankfully, nobody has done that in this debate, but sometimes in popular culture that can happen. The reality is that civil servants are public servants. As well as serving Ministers, they serve our constituents, sometimes on a daily basis. and they serve some of the most vulnerable people we represent at their times of greatest need. Civil servants prosecute criminals, represent British interests abroad and help to protect our borders.
	The model of our civil service has stood the test of time, ever since Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan’s reports 150-odd years ago. It is a model of political impartiality, objectivity and integrity. Those values should be maintained at the heart of the civil service, and they are values to which I reiterate our absolute commitment.
	The function of the civil service is not only to serve Ministers and the Government of the day. Civil servants prepare and transfer their expertise from one Government to the next. A fact that is sometimes overlooked is that the civil service enables us in Parliament to hold the Government to account. It is civil servants who draft answers to parliamentary questions—of course, Ministers sign them off and sometimes change them, but it is the civil servants who draft them in the first place. The civil service also provides factual information to our Committees and Libraries. A healthy, functioning and impartial civil service is important not only for a healthy, functioning Government but for enabling Parliament to hold Ministers to account. As “Truth to power” points out:
	“Nobody…argues that the Civil Service should be immune from change.”
	I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would agree with that.
	I was impressed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, in making a point about the inertia of the civil service, managed to quote both
	Tony Blair and the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. That is quite an unusual coalition. My right hon. Friend was right to make that point; that is what the debate is about. It is about ensuring that we reform the civil service so that Ministers are able to pursue the agenda that they were elected to implement and that the British people supported when they voted for them.
	We should also bear in mind that the civil service is undergoing a significant reduction in numbers, with an overall reduction of 138,000 planned by 2015. In that context, we need to ask ourselves what the policy-making functions and the implementation of policy in a much-reduced civil service will look like. We will need to make sure that a civil service with those numbers can continue to serve Ministers and to enable Parliament to hold those Ministers to account.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said that her speech was merely skimming the surface. I thought she made an incredibly powerful speech, however, and I am impressed that she would describe a contribution of such depth as skimming the surface. She rightly talked about the way in which Departments work in silos. She also made a point about the nature of the Government and how the concept of individual Departments is completely alien to many of our constituents. The citizen is increasingly frustrated and baffled as to why their interaction with the Government has to be conducted through so many different agencies. How many times do they have to hand over their personal data—whether for a driving licence, a passport, a tax return or benefits—to many different Departments? We understand how it works, because we are politicians, but our constituents find the number of Departments increasingly baffling. Any Government who wanted to make changes in those areas would probably run up against the type of inertia that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne was talking about, but these are the issues that we have to confront in the modern world.
	The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made a thoughtful and, at times, quite sparky contribution to the debate. I was not expecting such a sparky debate, but I enjoyed his speech. He too alluded to the way in which Government Departments work in silos, as he did in his joint article with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne in The Times today. We really have to confront the problem of departmental silos, because many of the issues that we are going to have to deal with—long-term trends in health, climate change, the opportunity of opening up big data and raising the trend rate of growth over the medium to long term, for example—will require increased cross-departmental working. That is why I am particularly interested in the outcome of the research of the think-tank that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have established.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and many others have referred to the skills gap and capability problems in the civil service. We are all familiar with the horror stories that have appeared in the press, including those relating to the west coast main line and to the contracts for broadband roll-out. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been candid about the failures in introducing
	universal credit—indeed, there have been some spiky exchanges across the Dispatch Box on that subject. His candour has been refreshing, but we have to acknowledge that there are commercial problems within the civil service, and we must tackle them.
	The report pulls no punches in its assessment of the skills gap across the civil service. Lord Adonis, in evidence to the Committee, said that, in his experience, some civil servants were
	“poorly trained and their experience of the sectors in which they work is very poor”.
	The Institute for Government has recently found that the civil service has suffered from “weak corporate leadership”. I think I am correct in saying that the data published by the Cabinet Office when it launched the civil service reform plan showed that out of 15 permanent secretaries at the main delivery Departments, only four had significant operational delivery or commercial experience. We would warmly welcome initiatives that increased the commercial experience of the civil service and developed the skills of the work force. I hope that the Department and Ministers involve all the workplace trade unions in meaningful discussions about and in the design of any such initiatives.
	I am also worried about the general sense that there is a quick turnover in civil service posts. I recall from my few years working in government that civil servants moved quickly and Ministers would sometimes be surprised that a civil servant with whom they may have had a close working relationship on a particular project was suddenly moved to another part of the Department and working in a different area. My worry is that we sometimes lose, or we can lose, expertise in that way, although I understand that civil servants want to develop their skills. Again, we need to think about this carefully.
	None the less, Labour Members believe that a number of the Government’s reform proposals have merit, such as requiring greater scrutiny of major projects, reducing the turnover of senior responsible officers, and the plan for integrating corporate functions. On the latter measure, may I press the Minister to say something about the shared services centres for functions relating to IT, human resources, pay and payroll? When they were created, some TUPE-ing over of staff took place, with time-limited agreements on no compulsory redundancies. We now understand that there will be job losses and offshoring of work, so will he give us his views on that? Is he confident about the data security issues?
	Some Members have referred to the extended ministerial offices. We will want to study the Government’s proposals on that and what they mean for accountability of Ministers and of civil servants. More generally, when we are discussing these issues, we must remember that the morale of civil servants is important—a happy work force is a more productive work force. We have previously had exchanges across the Dispatch Box about check-off, and Departments are reviewing that. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on those reviews and when he expects Departments to report back, if it is not going to be the Cabinet Office doing this.
	The Opposition are examining and thinking carefully about our views on civil service reform. We warmly welcome the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The case
	for a parliamentary commission made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex should be taken seriously. We are not going to commit today to supporting such a commission. It would need to have cross-party support, and some Members have spoken in favour today and others have spoken against. We are not ruling such a commission out indefinitely, but today we do not feel we can commit to supporting it. None the less, these debates should be taken seriously and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Francis Maude: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this debate. It has been a really good debate, conducted with a lot of intelligent, thoughtful comments and insights. It has been particularly marked by a very bipartisan, consensual approach, with a high degree of agreement from those in all parts of the House. I am particularly grateful for the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and I wish to pick up on a couple of points she made. She is absolutely right to say that we need to work on the ability of the civil service to accommodate and assimilate people coming in from outside. I also completely agree with her on the issues about women succeeding in the higher realms of the civil service, which is why I have just commissioned some work on examining exactly where and why the problems arise, so that we can address this in a substantive way. She is right to draw attention to it.
	I start by saying that there are many absolutely brilliant civil servants. I have no doubt that we have some of the best civil servants in the world. Just this morning, I was with a number of civil servants in Birmingham. One example stood out, and it involved part of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The national planning casework unit, half of which is based in Birmingham, told me that its casework has risen over the past four years by 24%. The speed with which it is delivering the outcomes has improved markedly, and it is doing that with less than half the staff it had to begin with. That is a remarkable improvement in productivity.
	As has been pointed out, there has been a significant reduction in headcount across the civil service. It is already down by some 16% or 17% with more reductions to come, and yet no one would say that the civil service is delivering less. There is a significant improvement in productivity. The downsizing has taken place through the recruitment freeze and through reforms to the civil service compensation scheme—the scheme was so generous as to be broadly unaffordable for the Government—for sensible voluntary redundancies to reduce the size and to reflect the need for things to be done differently. Some Departments, such as the DCLG and the Department for Education, have halved in size.
	There have been significant improvements, with some brilliant civil servants doing terrific and important work, but we need continuing and significant further improvement. No one argues otherwise, and no one in this Chamber today has said anything else. It does not matter whether we call it change, reform or improvement. We need to recognise what is great. We talk about the British civil service being the envy of the world, but what is the envy of the world is the essence of the Northcote-Trevelyan
	settlement. Northcote was a politician and Trevelyan a civil servant—an early example of collective leadership. What that said was not primarily about impartiality, but about permanence, and appointment and recruitment on merit. The principle of a permanent civil service capable of serving the Government of the day, regardless of their composition, is crucial. The values of impartiality, honesty and integrity are really important, but they are passive values and to them need to be added the dynamic values.
	The Northcote-Trevelyan settlement is a bargain, which says that a new Government cannot replace with existing civil servants with their own appointees, because the other side of the coin of impartiality and permanence is the ability to deliver the priorities of the democratically elected and accountable Government of the day. That means that the civil service must be able to deliver it. If it falls down for too long on that side of the bargain, the case to allow the Government to bring in their own appointees and thus to disrupt the settlement, which none of us wants to see, will mount.
	The truth is that in the public sector productivity flatlined for too long. That happened across the public sector as a whole, and the civil service represents only a part of that work force, but none the less it was a concern. Things have improved markedly over the past four years.
	When people talk about the British civil service being the best in the world, as they often do, we should just reflect on the fact that in the World Bank’s Government effectiveness index, we ranked 15th, behind countries with systems similar to ours, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We need to deal with the constant concerns that are expressed about the leadership and management of change. Those concerns are also expressed by civil servants themselves in people surveys, which is an excellent institution that will continue. The capability deficit in commercial and digital project management is repeatedly flagged up by the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration Committee, the Liaison Committee and the Institute for Government and we are on the case, as we have been for the past four years. Some of the problems that have arisen with contracts have come to light precisely because of the improvement in contract management. They went unnoticed for far too long and came to the surface in an alarming and distressing way, and we are working hard to deal with them, including by setting up the Crown Commercial Service, the Major Projects Leadership Academy and the Major Projects Authority, to which the right hon. Member for Barking referred. We have strengthened the hand of senior responsible owners by making them directly accountable. The Government Digital Service is almost, but not quite, what the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was proposing—that is, a public corporation for Government IT. None the less, it is an agency within government that has massively improved capability. I rather agree with him about the need to insource some of the capability, as too much IT capability was outsourced.
	Much work has already been done and the problems are well understood and are being addressed, but we need to do that much more quickly because too much public money—taxpayers’ money—is at risk.
	Impartiality is, of course, important. That does not mean and has never meant being impartial to the Government of the day. The civil service must be very partial towards the Government’s getting their programme implemented; otherwise, the bargain starts to fall apart. The essence of impartiality is not indifference to the Government of the day but the ability to be equally passionate and committed to implementing a future Government’s priorities and programme. It is important that this impartiality does not turn into a cold indifference. It must be a passionate commitment to delivering the Government of the day’s priorities. That is hugely important.
	There is much that has been done and much that needs to be done. Let me now come on to the proposal for a commission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. Differing views have been expressed on both sides of the House and a huge amount of work and analysis is already going on. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on setting up another institute to study the issue and make proposals. That is very important.
	As it would run alongside an active reform programme commanding very widespread support—it has slightly surprised me how little controversy has attended the civil service reform programme—one must ask what a commission would add at this stage. There would be scope-creep: the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) would like to add localism, the hon. Member for Luton North would like to add the size of the state, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) would like to add the Scottish civil service, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) would like to consider a wider joining-up across government than that which relates to the civil service.
	I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has slightly added to my concern about whether a commission would delay the implementation of the existing reform programme. His Committee’s last report suggested that the Government’s modest proposal that the Prime Minister should be able to choose between two appointable candidates should not be implemented until a commission had considered it, thus lending support to exactly the concerns we have expressed for some time. If relatively modest proposals that command such widespread support can be successfully implemented, the current system will have been reinforced. If they cannot be implemented in the way we are proposing, I suggest that that would be the time for root-and-branch examination through a commission.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and everyone who has spoken in the debate. I agree that it has been an interesting debate in which there has been a great deal of consensus and agreement. Let me just respond to the last point made by my right hon. Friend. The point we are making in our report is that it would be wrong for the Government to overrule the Civil Service Commission without Parliament having some say in the matter, because the Civil Service Commission was established by Parliament to provide precisely that kind of check and balance in the system to stop the Government making such a decision merely on the
	basis of royal prerogative. Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea that ministries should have more influence and choice, as they had in the past, over decisions about the appointment of permanent secretaries.
	In all the speeches today, I have not heard a single solid argument against the Civil Service Commission. Every argument in praise of GovernUp and the work it is doing is an argument in favour of the Civil Service Commission in Parliament. How can we let one thousand flowers bloom, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said—my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) endorsed that—if we stamp on the one flower that has democratic authority and legitimacy on the question of the civil service in Parliament?

Nick Herbert: It is a weed.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend says it is a weed, but I think he demeans himself by being derogatory about so many others who have offered their service in this, including Members who are supporting—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	filming of private deliberative meetings

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, a Select Committee may, with the unanimous consent of all its members, permit the filming of private deliberative meetings for the purposes of the documentary which was approved by the House of Commons Commission on 15 July 2013.—(Mr Evennett.)

BLASPHEMY LAW (PAKISTAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Rehman Chishti: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate the application of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. I consider myself to be a passionate, strong friend of Pakistan; I want to see it succeed. It is the country where I was born and spent the first six years of my life before moving to Gillingham as a little boy, which is the constituency that I now have the great honour to represent. I also had the great privilege to serve as an adviser to Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who lost her life during her quest to reform the country.
	Pakistan aspires to be a global player and to have a greater international role, but its current blasphemy laws tarnish Pakistan’s name and reputation. Pakistan needs to implement the aspiration of its founder Quiad-i-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who said in his address to the nation at the creation of Pakistan:
	“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
	For Pakistan to implement the aspiration of its founder, it must reform the blasphemy laws. These laws contravene international human rights standards, restricting freedom of speech and expression.
	The UN Human Rights Committee has said that blasphemy laws are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory. They are often used to punish minority communities as well as Muslim communities and to settle personal vendettas and land disputes. The blasphemy laws were expanded in Pakistan between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia-ul-Haq, who added several clauses, including section 295C to the penal code of Pakistan, which stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed.
	While Pakistan has never yet carried out an execution under its blasphemy laws, this may change after the recent ruling by Pakistan’s Federal Shariat Court that the death penalty should be the only penalty for blasphemy, although the Government of Pakistan have so far refused to accept this direction. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, at least 14 individuals are currently on death row and 19 more are serving life sentences, giving it the largest number of prisoners of belief.
	We need to urge the government of Pakistan to address this issue head on. The blasphemy laws have been misapplied in many cases. Take the recent case of Mohammad Asghar, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in this House. I pay tribute to the way in which she has raised that case at every level to ensure that justice is achieved for her constituent. He is a vulnerable British national with a history of mental illness and has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, having allegedly written blasphemous letters which were never posted.

Sheila Gilmore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but is he aware that there is still a problem with getting even
	medical attention for this gentleman, who lived in Edinburgh until relatively recently and whose family lives in my constituency? He has a mental health problem, but unfortunately it appears—the Minister might wish to comment on this—that it has been difficult to get in anyone who can make a medical assessment of his state.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is right, because individuals I talk to and experts who deal with such matters say that if someone is put in custody under the blasphemy laws, getting access to them and providing them with medical equipment are concerns. Additionally, there is a risk to the safety of those who are remanded in custody in blasphemy cases, and I hope that the Minister will address that real concern in his response.
	I know that the Foreign Office has raised the case of Mohammad Asghar with Pakistan’s high commission and the Chief Minister of Punjab, but the criminal justice process can take many years, which means that a large number of innocent victims are languishing in prison waiting for their appeal to be heard. That is true in the case of Asia Bibi, a 43-year-old Christian mother of five children who has been in prison since June 2009. She was sentenced to death in November 2010 for allegedly blaspheming the Prophet after an incident with fellow Muslim village workers because she was thirsty and drank water from a well and a cup belonging to a Muslim woman. Such a totally pathetic, illiterate cultural practice is contrary to the virtues and principles of Islam.
	Pope Benedict said at the time that what had happened in Asia Bibi’s case was unacceptable and called for her release. Her case is still awaiting an appeal before the Lahore High Court, but the proceedings have been postponed several times. On 24 February and 17 March, the hearing was cancelled when one of the two presiding judges failed to attend. On 26 March, the counsel for the complainant failed to appear. Perhaps at the next scheduled hearing, on 14 April, justice will be rightly done in this case. It is in the interests of justice and the credibility of Pakistan’s judicial system that the case is heard at its next listing and a judgment is made on the evidence before the court.
	Even if Asia Bibi is released, her and her family’s lives will be at risk. Her family has already gone into hiding after receiving death threats. In Pakistan, even an accusation of blasphemy can be enough to precipitate violence against the innocent.

Fiona Bruce: I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is imperative that ordinary citizens have faith in the justice system. Unfortunately, those afflicted by injustice are not only the victims, but lawyers and witnesses. The date of 2 March marked the third anniversary of the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, the then Minister for Minorities in Pakistan and the country’s only Christian Cabinet member. I understand that although a suspect has been detected, his trial has been jeopardised by death threats to lawyers and witnesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community should be pressing strongly for justice in this high-profile case, because what would impunity for Shahbaz Bhatti’s attacker say
	about the prospects in Pakistan for a plural and tolerant society in which diverse religious belief is honoured and respected?

Rehman Chishti: I fully concur. It is right and proper that, in any civilised, democratic country, lawyers and the judiciary must be able to do their jobs without harassment. Judges must be able to deal with cases impartially and fairly, so I agree that it would be a dark stain on Pakistan’s legal system were there not justice in the case of Shahbaz Bhatti.
	Linked to that—my hon. Friend will understand this point—is the case of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab who raised Asia Bibi’s case, who was shot dead by his bodyguard four years ago. The bodyguard has still not been sentenced. Why was that case not tried in the terrorist courts, rather than the civil courts, as Pakistani jurisdiction allows? Questions must be asked about why sentencing has not been dealt with in that case, even though the governor was clearly murdered.
	There have been too many cases in which those acquitted have faced the violence of the mob, for example when two Christian brothers were gunned down outside a court in Faisalabad, or in June last year when Ghulam Abbas, a Sunni Muslim, was pulled from a police station, beaten to death and his body burned, or even the case of an elderly man who was shot dead in Punjab after being released from prison. Blasphemy cases can also trigger rioting, as with the case of Sawan Masih. As The Times reported, when he was sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet during a conversation with a Muslim friend, a mob burned dozens of Christian homes and set fire to two churches.
	While Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have received international criticism, reform has received less attention in Pakistan because of the risks involved in raising such issues. Those who have spoken out, such as the Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti and the politician Salmaan Taseer, have found their own lives sadly cut short.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend know whether the UK has linked the considerable amount of aid we give Pakistan to the blasphemy laws in any way?

Rehman Chishti: I do not know whether the development aid we give Pakistan is linked to its blasphemy laws, but I know that it is spent on education, which is crucial for changing hearts and minds and ensuring that Pakistan becomes a tolerant society. Those who might drift into radicalisation or extreme values can then be given hope and opportunities through education.
	The violence and assassinations do not mean that reform is impossible. Although repeal might be difficult in the short term, changes could be made so that the laws are dealt with by the higher courts, rather than the lower courts, which are more susceptible to intimidation. Specialised prosecutors and specifically trained judges should also be appointed to deal with blasphemy cases. As Pakistan has specialised terrorist courts, there could be specialised courts for blasphemy cases.
	There should also be a body in the Ministry of Law to authorise prosecutions so that once an allegation has been made to the police, the matter is referred to the federal body in the Ministry before a charge is filed. That way, all the facts and evidence can be assessed
	before the individual is charged, because once an individual is charged it can take a very long time for the case to be heard, and in the meantime the individual is remanded in custody, which poses safety concerns, as many individuals awaiting blasphemy trials have been killed in prison.
	In 2012, while on a visit to Pakistan, I met President Zardari, Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, and members of the Christian community. The Christians raised real concerns about the application of the blasphemy laws leading to the persecution of the Christian community. When I spoke with 12 High Court judges and a Supreme Court judge and asked why the laws were being abused in Pakistan, sadly some of them said that there was no abuse of the laws, which raises real concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary in these cases.
	The Minister might well say that the Government have raised these issues, and the individual cases, with the Pakistani Government, and that they have a close relationship with that country but can do no more than push for reform. I know that the United Kingdom has a close relationship with Pakistan, that the Government are working to strengthen and deepen it, and that there is real influence there.
	I attended many Foreign and Commonwealth Office meetings while working with Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007, including meetings with the British high commissioners to Pakistan, Pakistan desk officers at the FCO, and the then FCO director for South Asia, as well as meetings with Foreign Secretaries, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the former right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In those meetings, everyone was focused on seeing a transition to democracy in Pakistan.
	The United Kingdom had a key role in bringing democracy to Pakistan. If the UK can do that, then it can play a key role in pushing for reform of these laws in Pakistan. I recently met Pakistan’s high commissioner to the UK to make the case for reform. There is also an opportunity for the Government to press these concerns during the forthcoming visit to the UK by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this issue will be raised with Prime Minister Sharif.
	I also urge the Minister to work with experts such as the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who was also Bishop of Riwand in Pakistan, and who has written and spoken extensively on how these reforms can be made. Bishop Michael recently met Prime Minister Sharif to raise this matter. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to arrange during Prime Minister Sharif’s visit a meeting between him and Members of Parliament who have expressed concern about these laws, and to ensure that experts in this area such as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali are present.
	When people have been acquitted in blasphemy cases, they often face the prospect of being killed when they are released from prison. Will the Minister consider working with other countries to accommodate individuals who have been prosecuted or persecuted for their conscience and freedom of belief and expression?
	Promoting respect for human rights and freedom of religion and belief should be an integral part of our foreign policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan needs to reform the outdated blasphemy laws that tarnish its name and deprive its people of their basic human rights. I understand
	that the people of Pakistan themselves have suffered as a result of radicalisation and being a front-line state in the war on terror in Afghanistan. However, the Government of Pakistan must reform these laws, not only because they tarnish their reputation but because it is the right thing to do, for these laws are bad laws. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to this matter.

David Lidington: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate. He spoke with passion, sincerity and very detailed knowledge. It was clear that he has a great love for Pakistan and its people and wants to see Pakistan move further towards the human rights of all its citizens being properly recognised and safeguarded.
	I also want to acknowledge the interventions by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The cross-party nature of these interventions will have demonstrated to anyone observing our affairs that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, particularly in relation to the use of the death penalty, concern the entire House and no particular party or faction.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham knows, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi has raised this issue in many conversations with senior members of the Pakistani Government, who are in no doubt about the concern that we attach to human rights in Pakistan and, in particular, to the issue of blasphemy as an offence.
	In the past 15 years, an estimated 1,274 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. The fact that I can contrast that total with just nine reported cases that we know of between 1929 and 1982 demonstrates the importance of this issue and why my hon. Friend was right to draw the House’s attention to it today.
	On the specific cases raised by hon. Members, I assure the House that we have made representations at the highest level. We continue to do so, and to do whatever we can to ensure that those who are facing charges or trials are treated properly and with respect for their human rights.
	I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that I am advised that Mr Mohammad Asghar has had a mental health assessment but has not yet been seen by the specialist whom his defence lawyer would like. We continue to do what we can and remain in contact with his lawyer to try to make sure that representations are being made by his legal team to have his mental health concerns taken fully into account in future proceedings.
	To answer my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, we do not link our aid programme to Pakistan directly to progress on this issue, but we design the programme in a way that helps to improve both the cultural understanding of the importance of human rights and the observance of human rights in practice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out that a great proportion of our aid to Pakistan is directed at improving education there. The figures show that roughly one in 10 of all children in the world who are without any schooling live in
	Pakistan. Raising education opportunities is one important way in which to help bring about the sort of social change we wish to see there. Another element of our aid programme to Pakistan is directed towards giving particular help to people from minorities within Pakistan, to enable them to understand their rights and to have greater opportunities in Pakistani society.
	Although it is important that the relationship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan is a broad and deep one, founded on history, human contact, development assistance, trade and a common need to resist terrorism, it is also important that that relationship is such that we can speak frankly to our Pakistani friends in Government about the kind of human rights problem that we have been debating tonight. To impose a death penalty for blasphemy is a breach of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the universal declaration of human rights, to both of which Pakistan has subscribed.
	At the risk of stating the obvious, these are Pakistan’s laws and it is only Pakistanis and the Pakistan Government and legislative bodies that can deliberate upon and make changes to the laws. As an external partner to and friend of Pakistan, we try to calibrate the language that we use in public about both individual cases and the general problem so as not to make things worse for people who might be at risk of persecution. There is no doubt that extremists within Pakistan are keen to look for any alleged evidence of western interference in their country.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham said, the space available for open debate in Pakistan about blasphemy—let alone campaigning—has become severely restricted over the past 20 years or so. It is important to recognise that although we are safe to debate this problem in this place or to discuss it with our constituents, men and women in Pakistan face abuse, threats, lynch mobs and even death for questioning the laws of their country in an equivalent way. We need to be careful about rushing to condemn people for at times being unwilling to stand up in public to tackle the iniquities of these laws when they would take severe risks upon themselves by doing so.
	It is also evident, however, that the blasphemy laws are open to abuse for personal gain, typically in commercial disputes. Although used predominantly against other Muslims, it is true that they are also used to persecute religious minorities, especially Christians and Ahmadis. The Government believe that is an intolerable abuse of freedom of religion and belief, and we must ensure that our objections to it and our wish for reform are clearly stated.
	This matter is a key part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights work bilaterally, with the EU and in other multilateral organisations. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi has led the way in raising the profile of religious tolerance, both in this country and in countries overseas, including with the Pakistani leadership.
	Sadly, many in Pakistani society face death threats, including journalists, minorities, Ministers and officials. Only last weekend, we were shocked to hear of an attack on Raza Rumi, a journalist and commentator known for speaking up for democracy and human rights. He survived, but tragically his driver died. Our high commissioner in Islamabad noted:
	“Mr Rumi has repeatedly spoken up for democracy and, in a democratic society, everyone has the right to speak up for their beliefs without fear of attack. We are committed to supporting the Government of Pakistan in encouraging an atmosphere of tolerance, where debate can flourish.”
	He ended by sending a message of support to Mr Rumi and his fellow journalists across Pakistan who stand up for free expression in the most incredibly difficult circumstances.

Rehman Chishti: The Minister outlines a scenario in which those who talk about democracy and tolerance pay the price, or nearly pay the price, with their death. Shahbaz Bhatti lost his life because he wanted reform in Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we in the UK urge Pakistan to ensure that those who have committed such horrific murders are brought to justice? On Shahbaz Bhatti’s case, if there can be no justice for a federal Minister who is a Christian, what hope is there for ordinary minority Christians, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Whenever we make representations on individual cases, we address not only alleged abuses of human rights—such as the withholding of access to medical treatment—but the right of any individual to due and impartial legal process, including proper legal representation.
	For all the reasons I have given, Pakistan remains listed as a country of concern in the FCO’s annual human rights report. The 2013 report will be published next week, on 10 April, and I urge Members to take note of what it says about Pakistan.
	Last August, Human Rights Watch noted the “impressive gains” made in Pakistan since the restoration of democracy in 2008, but warned that those gains could be lost unless the Government halted serious human rights abuses. We agree.
	It is true that no person convicted of blasphemy has yet been executed, and so far all death penalties imposed under blasphemy have been quashed by a higher court on appeal. However, hundreds of alleged blasphemers remain in jail pending the appeal of their original convictions and, regardless of the outcome of those appeals, the power of mob justice has made intolerable the lives of many of those against whom blasphemy has been alleged. We understand the cultural difficulties and why blasphemy is regarded as so offensive, but we must continue to pursue the issue with visitors from the Pakistani Government to this country, as well as through our contacts in Pakistan.
	It is not within the gift of Her Majesty’s Government to organise the meeting for which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asks, but we will put his proposal to the Pakistani Government. I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharif will find time during his visit to have discussions with Members of this and the other place on a wide range of issues, including human rights abuses, one egregious example of which has been the focus of this debate. I hope that we and our Pakistani friends can support a debate, a review and, above all, a long overdue reform of a dangerous and iniquitous abuse of human rights.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.